UK Court Rules Palestine Action Ban Illegal, Sparks Appeal

LONDON – The UK High Court ruled on February 13, 2026, that the British government’s ban on the pro-Palestinian activist group Palestine Action was unlawful, deeming the proscription “disproportionate.” The ruling marks a significant victory for civil liberties campaigners and raises questions about the government’s use of anti-terrorism legislation against protest movements.

The case was brought by Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, who challenged the decision made by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to designate the group as a terrorist organization. The ban, enacted in July 2025, criminalized membership or support for Palestine Action, carrying a potential sentence of up to 14 years in prison. The government’s action followed a protest at the Royal Air Force’s Brize Norton air base in Oxfordshire in June 2025, where activists damaged two aircraft in protest against British military support for Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

However, the High Court found that the scale and nature of Palestine Action’s activities did not meet the legal threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act. Judges Victoria Sharp, Jonathan Swift and Karen Steyn stated in their ruling that only a “very small number” of the group’s actions constituted acts of terrorism as defined by the 2000 Act. Other offenses, the court indicated, would be subject to standard criminal law proceedings.

“This is a monumental victory for our fundamental freedoms, here in Britain, and in the struggle for the freedom of the Palestinian people,” Ammori said in a statement following the ruling. She called for the immediate release of all those arrested in connection with Palestine Action protests, particularly those currently on hunger strike. Ammori also argued that any further arrests based on the now-unlawful ban would be “a blatant affront to the rule of law.”

The ruling comes after a period of widespread protests and arrests. Since July, approximately 2,787 individuals – including pensioners and elderly citizens – have been arrested at demonstrations across the UK, many for simply holding signs stating “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”

The decision to ban Palestine Action drew criticism from human rights advocates, who argued it represented an overreach of government power and risked criminalizing legitimate political dissent. Concerns were raised about the precedent set by using anti-terrorism laws against protest movements.

The government has announced its intention to appeal the High Court’s decision. Current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating she did not believe banning the organization was a disproportionate measure. The ban remains in place pending the outcome of the appeal.

The case also highlighted concerns about potential political influence in the decision-making process. A recent documentary by Channel Four revealed that Lord Walney, a government advisor on protests at the time the ban was imposed, holds strong pro-Israel views and had advocated for stricter restrictions on Gaza protests. He also chaired the Labour Friends of Israel parliamentary lobby group. The documentary further reported that the ban was requested by Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer and a frequent target of Palestine Action protests.

According to reports, Elbit Systems disseminated claims through its public relations agency alleging links between Palestine Action and Iran, a claim widely dismissed as disinformation circulated on the same day the group was proscribed by the Home Secretary. The timing of these allegations raised questions about their credibility and potential influence on the government’s decision.

Palestine Action, founded in July 2020, has focused its activism on disrupting the operations of companies involved in the supply of arms and technology to Israel. The group’s tactics have included direct action, such as protests at factories and military installations, and causing damage to property. The organization states its goal is to end global complicity in what it describes as the oppression of Palestinians.

The High Court ruling is likely to fuel further debate about the balance between national security, freedom of expression, and the right to protest. It also underscores the complexities of defining terrorism and the potential for anti-terrorism laws to be used to suppress legitimate political activism. The outcome of the government’s appeal will be closely watched by civil liberties groups and activists across the United Kingdom.