UK Court Hears Challenge to Ban on Palestine Action as Critics Decry Heavy-Handed Measures
High Court begins hearing over government’s July proscription of the pro-Palestinian group under terrorism laws
The UK government’s decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation is being tested in court this week, after lawyers for the group’s co-founder argued the move tramples core civil-liberties rights.
The High Court hearing began amid protests outside the court, with supporters warning the proscription sets a dangerous precedent for lawful dissent.
Palestine Action — proscribed in July 2025 following a break-in at an RAF base and other direct-action protests — was placed on the same list as militant organisations, making membership or support punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The group has long targeted firms linked to Israel’s defence industry, and officials say its actions caused millions of pounds in damage.
At the hearing, co-founder Huda Ammori, represented by lawyer Raza Husain KC, argued the ban was “unprecedented and disproportionate,” casting it as an “authoritarian” curtailment of free expression, assembly and protest — rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The legal team contended that Palestine Action engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, and noted policing reports had acknowledged that violent incidents were rare, with most arrests stemming from peaceful support.
The Home Office, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, defended the proscription as necessary: the government argued that the group’s campaign of property damage and disruption satisfied the legal definition of terrorism, and that the ban was a proportionate measure to protect national security.
Since the proscription, more than 2,000 people have been arrested under the new law — many for mere expressions of support as opposed to direct involvement in protests.
Some detainees remain on hunger strike; one was hospitalised, prompting calls from over 100 doctors for authorities to ensure their safety.
The litigation could reshape Britain’s landscape for protest and dissent: if the court rules in favour of Palestine Action, it could void hundreds of terrorism-related charges and constrain the government’s use of anti-terror laws against civil-action groups.
A judgment has not yet been scheduled.
The High Court hearing began amid protests outside the court, with supporters warning the proscription sets a dangerous precedent for lawful dissent.
Palestine Action — proscribed in July 2025 following a break-in at an RAF base and other direct-action protests — was placed on the same list as militant organisations, making membership or support punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The group has long targeted firms linked to Israel’s defence industry, and officials say its actions caused millions of pounds in damage.
At the hearing, co-founder Huda Ammori, represented by lawyer Raza Husain KC, argued the ban was “unprecedented and disproportionate,” casting it as an “authoritarian” curtailment of free expression, assembly and protest — rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The legal team contended that Palestine Action engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, and noted policing reports had acknowledged that violent incidents were rare, with most arrests stemming from peaceful support.
The Home Office, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, defended the proscription as necessary: the government argued that the group’s campaign of property damage and disruption satisfied the legal definition of terrorism, and that the ban was a proportionate measure to protect national security.
Since the proscription, more than 2,000 people have been arrested under the new law — many for mere expressions of support as opposed to direct involvement in protests.
Some detainees remain on hunger strike; one was hospitalised, prompting calls from over 100 doctors for authorities to ensure their safety.
The litigation could reshape Britain’s landscape for protest and dissent: if the court rules in favour of Palestine Action, it could void hundreds of terrorism-related charges and constrain the government’s use of anti-terror laws against civil-action groups.
A judgment has not yet been scheduled.
