The Court of Appeal has upheld the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, ruling that the group’s campaign of direct action against companies linked to Israel’s arms industry went far beyond the bounds of peaceful protest.
In a major victory for the government, a five-judge panel led by Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr overturned a landmark High Court ruling from February which had found the ban unlawful and disproportionate.
The judgment means Palestine Action will remain a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act, with membership of, or support for, the group carrying criminal penalties of up to 14 years in prison.
Following the ruling, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori accused the courts of enabling further restrictions on political activism connected to Palestine.
And CAGE described the ruling as evidence that Britain’s counter-terrorism framework is being used to suppress opposition to government policy.
Judges: Palestine Action Is Not a Peaceful Protest Group
The Court of Appeal’s central finding was that Palestine Action could not be characterised as a conventional protest movement whose rights to freedom of expression and assembly should outweigh the government’s security concerns.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
In the judgment, the court stated: “Palestine Action is not an organisation engaged in activities falling within the well-established tradition of peaceful protest.”
The judges instead concluded that the group was: “an organisation that is concerned in terrorism” under the definition contained in the Terrorism Act 2000.
While acknowledging the significant impact that proscription has on freedom of speech and assembly, the court ruled that these concerns were outweighed by the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities.
The judges pointed to what they described as a nationwide campaign of criminal damage against defence and military-linked targets, writing that Palestine Action was: “engaged in causing serious damage to property using weapons, including sledgehammers, presenting very real risks of injury to members of the public.”
The court also relied heavily on evidence presented by the Home Secretary concerning Palestine Action’s methods and organisational structure.
Referring to the group’s activities, the judges said: “Palestine Action’s nationwide campaign was escalating and was not being pursued with any restraint.”
The judgment further noted that the organisation’s “Underground Manual” advocated the disruption and destruction of targets and avoiding detection.
National Security arguments accepted
A key element of the government’s case was that Palestine Action’s actions were not isolated incidents of civil disobedience but part of a coordinated campaign intended to shut down businesses and infrastructure. The judges accepted that argument.
They found that Palestine Action’s campaign was: “intended to close down the operations of companies pursuing lawful businesses” including defence firms involved in supplying equipment and services connected to the UK, NATO, Ukraine and Britain’s allies.
The court also accepted the Home Secretary’s argument that proscription would help disrupt Palestine Action’s operations.
According to the judgment: “A key benefit of proscribing Palestine Action was to prevent it from funding terrorism and to degrade its covert infrastructure characterised by secret cells.”
The judges emphasised that decisions involving national security and terrorism required significant deference to elected ministers.
In one of the most important passages of the judgment, the court said the Home Secretary: “had both the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make that decision.”
High Court victory overturned
The ruling reverses a February judgment won by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori.
At that time, the High Court found that the government’s decision to ban Palestine Action breached freedom of expression and assembly rights and failed to comply with its own published policy on proscription.
The government appealed that decision, arguing that the High Court had placed too much weight on free speech concerns and had failed to properly consider the seriousness of Palestine Action’s activities.
The Court of Appeal agreed and restored the legality of the ban.
Huda Ammori Condemns Decision
Following the ruling, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori accused the courts of enabling further restrictions on political activism connected to Palestine.
Ammori said the judgment would have severe implications for the rights of those campaigning for Palestine and would further restrict freedom of expression and assembly for people opposing Britain’s support for Israel.
For campaigners, the case has become about far more than Palestine Action itself. Many see it as a test case for the future of protest rights and political dissent in Britain.
CAGE: ‘Authoritarian tools for crushing dissent’
The judgment was also condemned by advocacy group CAGE, which described the ruling as evidence that Britain’s counter-terrorism framework is being used to suppress opposition to government policy.
In a statement issued after the ruling, CAGE argued that the decision would leave thousands of people vulnerable to prosecution for expressing support for Palestine Action.
The organisation noted that nearly 3,000 people have been arrested since the group was proscribed and said the threat of criminal proceedings remains active.
Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said: “This ruling tells us exactly what these powers are for. They are not safeguards against violence, they are authoritarian tools for crushing dissent.”
He added: “Thousands of people, including pensioners, now continue to live under threat of prosecution for opposing Britain’s role in a genocide. That is the reality this judgment protects.”
CAGE argued that the fundamental problem was not merely the Palestine Action ban itself but the wider system of proscription and counter-terrorism legislation which allows the state to classify political activism as terrorism.
“The only sustainable outcome is the abolition of these laws in their entirety,” Mustapha said.
What happens next?
The ruling is likely to have significant implications not only for Palestine Action but for the wider Palestine solidarity movement.
More than 3,000 people have reportedly been arrested since the ban came into force, many during demonstrations organised by Defend Our Juries and other civil liberties groups.
For supporters of Palestine Action, the case has become a symbol of what they see as the criminalisation of opposition to Israel’s war on Gaza and Britain’s role in supporting it.
For the government, however, the Court of Appeal’s decision represents judicial confirmation that Palestine Action’s campaign falls within the scope of anti-terror legislation and that proscription remains a lawful and proportionate response.
The legal battle may not be over. Campaigners are expected to explore further appeals, including the possibility of taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
