UK High Court Rules Palestine Action Terror Ban Unlawful in Landmark Free Speech Ruling

Britain's High Court ruled on Friday that the government's decision to ban the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws was unlawful, in a landmark judgment that has reignited debate over the boundaries of state power, free expression and the right to protest.

The ruling, delivered by a three-judge panel led by the president of the King's Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, alongside Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, found that the proscription of Palestine Action was a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly . The unanimous decision marks the first successful legal challenge to the banning of a direct action protest group under the Terrorism Act 2000.

In a 46-page judgment, Dame Victoria Sharp acknowledged that Palestine Action promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality, but concluded that proscription was nonetheless disproportionate . The court found that only a very small number of the group's actions amounted to terrorist action within the statutory definition .

The Home Office placed Palestine Action on the proscribed organisations list in July 2025, putting it on par with groups such as al-Qaeda, Islamic State and Hamas . From 5 July last year, being a member of or expressing support for the group became a criminal offence carrying a sentence of up to 14 years in prison . The ban was the first time a direct action protest group had been proscribed in the UK .

The government moved to outlaw Palestine Action after activists broke into a Royal Air Force base in June 2025 to protest British military support for Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza . The activists sprayed red paint into the engines of two tanker planes and caused further damage with crowbars . Since its founding in 2020, the group has carried out direct action protests at military and industrial sites across the UK, including facilities owned by Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems UK, with officials saying the group's actions have caused millions of pounds in damage .

Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action who brought the legal challenge, described the ruling as a monumental victory for fundamental freedoms in Britain and for the Palestinian people . She said the government had proscribed Palestine Action in what she called a Trumpian abuse of power, adding that the ban had resulted in the unlawful arrest of nearly 3,000 people, including priests, vicars, former magistrates and retired doctors, under terrorism laws for holding signs reading that they oppose genocide and support Palestine Action .

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood responded with disappointment and announced her intention to appeal. In a statement, she said she disagreed with the notion that banning what she called a terrorist organisation was disproportionate . She emphasised that the proscription followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process endorsed by parliament, and that it did not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause . As a former lord chancellor, she said, she has the deepest respect for the judiciary, but maintained that home secretaries must retain the ability to take action to protect national security .

The judges ordered that the ban will remain in place while the government considers whether to appeal, meaning that membership and support for Palestine Action technically remain criminal offences for the time being .

The case attracted wide attention from civil liberties organisations, which argued that the proscription represented an unprecedented use of anti-terrorism powers against a group engaged in civil disobedience rather than violence . More than 2,000 people have been arrested since the ban took effect, many of them for peacefully holding signs declaring their support for the proscribed group .

The ruling now places pressure on the government to decide swiftly whether to pursue an appeal or to accept the court's finding and lift the ban. Legal analysts have noted that the judgment could set a significant precedent for how proscription powers are applied to protest movements, potentially constraining the Home Office's ability to use anti-terror legislation against groups whose activities fall short of sustained and organised violence .

The trial in the High Court in London concluded in December after proceedings that were partly held in secret, a feature that itself drew criticism from transparency advocates . The judgment was handed down on Friday morning, with Ammori and supporters gathering outside the Royal Courts of Justice to hear the outcome.