UK Court Upholds Palestine Action Terrorism Ban, Raising Protest Rights Concerns

Human Rights Research Center
12 hours ago
5 min read

June 18, 2026

HRRC condemns the disproportionate use of counter-terrorism powers against protest movements where those powers risk criminalizing peaceful expression, public dissent, and solidarity activism. States must not use national security law to criminalize lawful protest or treat political sympathy as terrorist support.

The UK Court of Appeal has upheld the government’s decision to ban the protest group Palestine Action after classifying it as a terrorist organization, reversing a February 2026 High Court judgment that had found the proscription unlawful. The case was brought by Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, who challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe the group under section 3 and schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The proscription order first came into force on July 5th, 2025, after approval by both Houses of Parliament.

As part of this week’s decision, the Court of Appeal decided that the Home Secretary was entitled to consider the benefits of proscription, including whether the ban would give police additional tools to disrupt Palestine Action’s activities, finances, and public support.

The Court ruled that the Home Secretary had not misapplied her own policy on banning organizations. It further concluded that the ban was a justified and proportionate interference with rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Unlike conventional activist organizations, Palestine Action is a direct-action protest group, meaning its members employ disruptive protest tactics – such as organizing blockades and damaging property – rather than pursuing activism through traditional political channels. The group has focused much of its activity on companies linked to Israel’s arms industry, particularly Elbit Systems. The UK government banned the group after activists damaged two military planes during a break-in at RAF Brize Norton. However, supporters of the group argue that the proscription transforms protest activity and political solidarity into terrorism-related criminality.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, membership of a proscribed organization, inviting support for it, or displaying representative articles (such as flags, logos, or badges) in a way that may suggest support can all be considered criminal offenses. As a result, membership of Palestine Action is currently punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the chilling message that proscription may send to people wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but held that the “core or essence” of lawful expression and assembly remain untouched. The Court maintained that people can still lawfully protest in support of Palestinians or criticize Israel, provided they do not support Palestine Action as a proscribed organization.

Civil liberties organizations have criticized the ruling. Akiko Hart, director of the rights group Liberty, said the organization was “disappointed” by the judgment and believed the proscription was “a disproportionate use of counter-terror powers.” Liberty separately warned that the ruling indicates that “expressing support for Palestine Action remains a terror offense, and that ongoing prosecutions will continue.”

The case affects a large number of people: the Court of Appeal judgment noted that more than 700 cases are pending in the criminal courts of England and Wales, with many more at the pre-charge stage.

Ammori has indicated that she intends to continue the legal challenge, including by seeking to appeal to the UK Supreme Court and potentially the European Court of Human Rights.

“We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history,” she stated.

For now, however, the Court of Appeal’s decision means the proscription remains in force and prosecutions linked to expressions of support for Palestine Action may continue.

Glossary

Article 10 ECHR — The provision of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting freedom of expression. It is a qualified right, meaning the state may restrict it in limited circumstances, such as for national security or public safety, if the restriction is lawful, necessary, and proportionate
Article 11 ECHR — The provision of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting freedom of assembly and association. Like Article 10, it may be restricted only where legally justified and proportionate
Chilling speech — When a law, policy, prosecution risk, or official action does not necessarily ban lawful speech outright, but discourages people from speaking, protesting, publishing, or associating because they fear legal consequences
Civil liberties — basic freedoms people have against unnecessary or arbitrary state interference, such as freedom of speech, protest, assembly, religion, privacy, and due process
Counter-terrorism — Coordinated policing and security response to terrorism, including work to prevent radicalisation, investigate suspected terrorist activity, protect potential targets, and prepare for attacks
Court of Appeal — One of the senior courts of England and Wales. It hears appeals from lower courts, including the High Court, and can uphold, overturn, or modify earlier decisions
Criminal damage — Damage to property that may constitute a criminal offence. In this case, alleged damage to military or defense-linked property formed part of the factual background to the proscription dispute
European Court of Human Rights — The international court in Strasbourg that hears cases alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights after domestic remedies have usually been exhausted
High Court — A senior court in England and Wales that hears major civil, administrative, and public law cases. The High Court initially ruled that the Palestine Action proscription was unlawful before the Court of Appeal overturned that decision
Judicial review — A legal process through which courts examine whether a public authority acted lawfully, fairly, rationally, and consistently with human rights obligations
Margin of appreciation / discretion — The degree of latitude courts may give to government decision-makers, especially in areas involving national security or complex policy judgments
Permission to appeal — The court’s approval for a party to bring an appeal to a higher court. A party usually needs permission before appealing to the UK Supreme Court
Proportionality — A legal test asking whether the government’s interference with a right goes no further than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Courts often ask whether the measure is suitable, necessary, and fairly balanced against the rights affected
Proscription — The legal banning of an organization under counter-terrorism law. Once an organization is proscribed, membership, support, fundraising, or public display of support may become criminal offenses
Proscription order — The legal instrument that formally adds an organization to the list of banned groups under terrorism legislation
Public dissent — Open disagreement with an official position, government policy, authority, or dominant public view
Terrorism Act 2000 — The main UK statute governing terrorism offenses, including the power to proscribe organizations believed to be concerned in terrorism
Terrorist organization — In this context, an organization that the Home Secretary has formally proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 because she believes it is concerned in terrorism

References

HRRC accepts NO funding from governments for our research or campaigns. At every step of the way, our impact is made possible because of people like YOU. Make your contribution now!

UK Court Upholds Palestine Action Terrorism Ban, Raising Protest Rights Concerns

Recent Posts