UK Court Rules Ban On Palestine Action Unlawful, Government To Appeal

By Staff, Agencies

The UK High Court ruled on Friday that the government’s proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act was unlawful, marking the first successful legal challenge to such a ban.

A three-judge panel led by Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division, concluded that the decision to ban the group was unlawful. However, the ban will remain temporarily in force while the government prepares an appeal.

Since July 5 last year, membership in or public support for Palestine Action has been a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The group had been placed on the list of proscribed organizations alongside internationally recognized armed groups.

The court upheld the challenge on two of four grounds, finding that the proscription constituted “a very significant interference” with rights to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and association.

Judges also ruled that then–home secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision was inconsistent with her own stated policy.

Sharp noted that Palestine Action promotes its political cause through criminal acts and encouragement of such activity but ruled the ban disproportionate.

She said only a small number of the group’s actions met the legal definition of terrorism and that general criminal law remained sufficient to address those acts.

The scale and persistence of activities classified as terrorism, she added, had not reached a level warranting proscription.

According to campaign group Defend Our Juries, more than 2,700 people have been arrested since the ban took effect, with over 500 charged under the Terrorism Act.

If the proscription order is ultimately quashed, those charges could be dropped. For now, individuals charged remain in legal uncertainty as the ban stays in place pending appeal.

Current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the government will challenge the ruling.

Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori described the judgment as a “monumental victory,” arguing the ban was based on property damage rather than violence against individuals.

The case is expected to intensify debate in the United Kingdom over the balance between national security powers and civil liberties.