Summary: The High Court has ruled that the Government’s decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terror laws was “disproportionate”, delivering a major legal setback to the Home Office. While judges accepted some of the group’s actions amounted to terrorism, they concluded the threshold for proscription had not been met. The Government has confirmed it will appeal.
Judges Rule Ban Was “Disproportionate”
According to The Telegraph, the High Court has ruled that the proscription of Palestine Action under terrorism legislation was unlawful because it was “disproportionate”.
The ban, introduced last July, made membership or support for the group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Dame Victoria Sharp, delivering the court’s summary, said:
“The court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate.”
She added:
“A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act.”
However, the judges concluded that the “nature and scale” of those activities had not reached a level sufficient to justify full proscription.
“The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
The ruling follows a seven-month legal challenge brought by co-founder Huda Ammori.
Government Says Group “Carried Out Acts Of Terrorism”
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed the Government will appeal.
“The court has acknowledged that Palestine Action has carried out acts of terrorism, celebrated those who have taken part in those acts and promoted the use of violence.”
She continued:
“It has also concluded that Palestine Action is not an ordinary protest or civil disobedience group, and that its actions are not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.”
Mahmood said she was “disappointed” and made clear she intends to fight the judgment in the Court of Appeal.
The Home Office also argued that the ruling could weaken the Home Secretary’s future ability to proscribe terrorist organisations.
Despite the court victory, the ban technically remains in place for now while further legal arguments are heard.
Free Speech, Terror Laws And Political Fallout
The case has exposed a deeper legal tension between counter-terrorism powers and civil liberties.
The High Court noted that proscription carries “very significant interference” with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since the ban came into force, more than 2,000 people have reportedly been arrested for holding signs or expressing support for the group.
Outside court, supporters chanted “from the river to the sea” and celebrated the ruling.
Liberty director Akiko Hart said:
“This case has exposed a deeper problem where the line between direct action and terrorism has become dangerously blurred.”
Meanwhile, the Green Party’s Zack Polanski called for charges against arrested supporters to be dropped.
For the Government, the central argument remains national security. For critics, the concern is overreach.
The judges have effectively said that while some actions crossed into terrorism territory, the overall threshold for branding the entire organisation as a terrorist group was not met.
The appeal will now determine whether the Home Secretary retains broad discretion to proscribe groups based on cumulative behaviour, or whether courts will require a higher evidential bar.
This is no longer just about one activist organisation. It is about how far anti-terror powers can stretch before clashing with protest rights.
And in the current political climate, that debate is only just beginning.
Discover more from Breaking Brexit News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unelected judges have ho much power. They shouldn’t be allowed to overturn the elected government.