Palestine Action ban: counter-terrorism measure or crackdown on protest?

Britain's ban on Palestine Action has led to more than 3,000 arrests, many of them of people holding signs at protests. The government says the group crossed from protest into terrorism. Opponents say the ban criminalises speech and protest. Two courts have reached opposite conclusions on whether it is lawful. This story sets out what each court decided and which claims hold up.

Background

Palestine Action is a direct action group that targeted sites it linked to Israel's arms supply, often by breaking in and damaging property. On June 20, 2025, activists entered RAF Brize Norton and sprayed two military aircraft. On June 23 Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told Parliament she would proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 (written statement). The Commons approved the order on July 2, 2025 by 385 votes to 26 (division record), and the ban took effect on July 5. The same order also proscribed two other groups. Membership of, or expressing support for, a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence carrying up to 14 years in prison.

Where things stand (as of Oct 18, 2026)

• High Court, February 2026. In a challenge brought by co-founder Huda Ammori, the Divisional Court ruled the proscription unlawful. It found the Home Secretary had not properly applied her own proscription policy and that the ban was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and association (press summary, judgment, Guardian). The ban stayed in force pending appeal.
• Court of Appeal, June 15, 2026. The Court of Appeal allowed the government's appeal and held the ban lawful and proportionate (judgment, BBC). It accepted that proscription may have a "chilling effect" on people who wish to support the Palestinian cause but found that outweighed by other factors, including its view that the group is not engaged in the tradition of peaceful protest.
• Arrests. The Court of Appeal noted more than 700 cases pending in the criminal courts. Reporting puts total arrests above 3,000, including more than 100 outside court on the day of the ruling (Independent, Guardian).
• Next steps. Palestine Action's side has said it will seek to appeal to the Supreme Court (BBC). A separate challenge is under way in Scotland, according to the Court of Appeal judgment.

Key claims on trial

• "Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation." (government). Verified as the current legal position; substance disputed. Parliament approved the order and the Court of Appeal upheld it. But the High Court found that only a small number of the group's actions met the legal definition of terrorism, and that ordinary criminal law could deal with them (as summarised by Liberty). Senior judges disagreed, which is why this remains contested.
• "The ban criminalises peaceful protest and free speech." (opponents). Disputed. The ban does criminalise expressions of support for the group itself, including holding a sign, and the Court of Appeal acknowledged a chilling effect. It does not ban support for Palestinians or criticism of Israel, a distinction the court stressed. Whether that line is workable in practice is the heart of the dispute.
• "Many of those arrested are peaceful sign-holders, not saboteurs." (opponents). Verified. Reporting of mass arrests at sign-holding protests supports this. Mediajury has not seen a full official breakdown of arrest grounds, so precise proportions are unverified.
• "The Home Secretary ignored her own policy." (opponents). Disputed. The High Court agreed. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the policy did not limit the factors she could consider. The appellate ruling currently governs.
• "There is an international consensus that bans like this are disproportionate." (interveners). Disputed. The Court of Appeal called the evidence for such a consensus "exiguous" and noted that European human rights case law gives states a wide margin on indirect support for terrorism.
• "Proscription was needed because criminal law was not enough." (government). Disputed. The government argued operational benefits from treating the group as a whole. The High Court found ordinary criminal law adequate. The Court of Appeal accepted the government's reasoning.
• "The Supreme Court will overturn the ban." (supporters). Pending. No permission to appeal has been reported as granted.

What is still unknown

Whether the Supreme Court will hear the case. How courts will handle the hundreds of pending prosecutions, and whether juries will convict sign-holders. Whether the Scottish challenge produces a different result. Whether the government will review the order, which can be lifted through a deproscription process. The closed (secret) parts of the judgments are not public, so some of the evidence the courts weighed cannot be assessed.

Source notes

The court judgments and parliamentary records are primary sources. Arrest totals come from media reporting citing police figures, not an official consolidated dataset. Liberty is a civil liberties campaign group that opposes the ban, and its explainer is cited only for its summary of the High Court ruling. The UK Human Rights Blog is written by barristers and offers legal analysis rather than news. The Independent report on arrests and some BBC details were confirmed from search excerpts. Palestine Action's own statements are not relied on for any factual claim.

Sources

• UK Parliament: Home Secretary written statement, June 23, 2025
• Commons division, July 2, 2025
• High Court press summary, R (Ammori) v SSHD
• High Court open judgment (Feb. 2026)
• Guardian: ban ruled unlawful
• Court of Appeal open judgment (June 2026)
• BBC: ban is lawful, Court of Appeal rules
• Guardian: Court of Appeal ruling
• Independent: more than 100 arrested
• UK Human Rights Blog: extended analysis
• Liberty: breaking down the judgment (advocacy)

Lead image: Police and protesters holding signs in support of Palestine Action in Parliament Square, London, Sept. 6, 2025. Photo: Alisdare (CC BY-SA 4.0), via Wikimedia Commons.