top of page

UK Palestine Action ban ruled unlawful

  • Writer: The Left Chapter
    The Left Chapter
  • 2 hours ago
  • 2 min read

Protest in support of Palestine Action, September 6, 2025 -- indigonolan, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons


Various Sources


In another blow to Keir Starmer's reactionary regime, Britain’s High Court has ruled that the government’s designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful due to disproportionate restrictions on freedoms of expression and assembly.


Palestine Action, a UK-based pro-Palestinian direct action group established in 2020, had engaged in protests targeting Israeli-linked defence companies, including actions at RAF Brize Norton and Elbit Systems. In July 2025, the UK government, under the Terrorism Act 2000, proscribed the group as a terrorist organisation, equating it with groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, making membership or support punishable by up to 14 years in prison.


On February 13, 2026, the High Court ruled the ban unlawful, noting that only a small proportion of the group’s activities met the legal threshold for terrorism. Judges determined that the proscription was disproportionate and interfered significantly with the right to freedom of speech and assembly. While the group’s actions involved criminal damage, these were considered insufficient to justify a full terrorist designation. The ban, however, remains in place temporarily pending any appeal by the UK government.


Since the ban, nearly 2,800 individuals had been arrested for peaceful demonstrations in support of Palestine Action. The court’s decision renders these arrests technically unlawful, though ongoing prosecutions against members involved in criminal damage remain unaffected.


Co-founder Huda Ammori called the verdict a “monumental victory” for fundamental freedoms, while the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood expressed disappointment and indicated the government intends to appeal. Human rights groups and some UK politicians praised the decision as a limit on government overreach and a protection of democratic rights.

Comments


bottom of page