UK Court Overturns Palestine Action Ban, Home Secretary Vows Appeal

Three senior judges in the UK have ruled that the ban on the activist group Palestine Action, enacted under anti-terrorism laws, was both disproportionate and unlawful. This decision represents a significant defeat for Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has been urged to respect the court’s ruling. The ban, introduced by her predecessor Yvette Cooper, was deemed an infringement on the right to protest and is set to be quashed, although Mahmood has indicated plans to appeal.

The ruling comes after numerous arrests—over 2,500 individuals—were made in connection with supporting Palestine Action since the implementation of the ban. Despite the court’s decision, the fate of those arrested remains uncertain as Mahmood prepares to challenge the ruling. The judges, led by Victoria Sharp, president of the king’s bench division, stated that the banning order would not be lifted until both parties had the opportunity to present further arguments.

In light of the court’s ruling, the Metropolitan Police have announced they will cease immediate arrests for showing support for Palestine Action. However, they will continue to collect evidence for potential future prosecutions.

Co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, who initiated the high court challenge, described the ruling as a “monumental victory.” She stated, “We were banned because Palestine Action’s disruption of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, cost the corporation millions of pounds in profits.” Ammori emphasized that the government’s actions were primarily aimed at appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups rather than concerns about terrorism.

The judgment marks a historic moment, being the first successful challenge against an organisation banned under anti-terrorism law. The judges upheld two of the four grounds for challenge, indicating that the ban significantly interfered with freedoms of speech and assembly, and that Cooper’s original decision did not align with her own policy guidelines regarding the assessment of threats to the UK.

While acknowledging Palestine Action’s activities as promoting its political agenda through illegal means, Sharp remarked that the court found the proscription of the group was disproportionate. The judges noted that only a small fraction of the group’s actions could be classified as terrorism, suggesting that general criminal laws were sufficient for addressing those activities.

Outside the High Court in London, around 100 supporters celebrated the ruling, chanting “free Palestine.” The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Saul, alongside organizations like Amnesty International UK and Liberty, has called on Mahmood to adhere to the court’s decision. Saul stated that accepting the ruling would allow authorities to refrain from taking further action against individuals who expressed their beliefs about Israel and Palestine since the ban was enacted on July 5, 2025.

Palestine Action has consistently asserted that its targets are companies complicit with Elbit Systems and others involved in the oppression of Palestinians. Those arrested since the ban—many for holding placards such as “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”—face prosecution under section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum six-month prison sentence. More than 500 individuals, including clergy, pensioners, and military veterans, have been charged, with the law imposing severe penalties for membership in or support of a proscribed group.

In response to the ruling, Mahmood expressed disappointment, asserting, “I disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate.” She emphasized that the proscription followed a comprehensive and evidence-based process supported by Parliament. Mahmood reiterated her commitment to national security, stating, “Home secretaries must, however, retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the court of appeal.”