UK Palestine Action ban ruled unlawful, in humiliating blow for ministers | UK news

Judges humiliated ministers by insisting that Palestine Action should not be banned under anti-terrorism laws, in a decision that left thousands of its supporters in legal limbo.

The government’s ban on the direct action group was “disproportionate and unlawful” and most of its activities did not reach the level, scale and persistence to be defined as terrorism, the high court said on Friday.

Home Affairs Minister Shabana Mahmood has been called on to respect the court decision after three judges said the ban imposed by her predecessor, Yvette Cooper, affected the right to protest and should be lifted.

However, the fate of more than 2,500 people arrested for supporting the Palestine Movement after the ban remained unclear after Mahmood said he would appeal the ban.

Separately, three judges, led by the king’s bench president Dame Victoria Sharp, said the restraining order would not be set aside until both parties were allowed to make representations.

Meanwhile, the Met police said they would immediately stop arresting people who showed support for Palestine Action after the high court ruling, but would collect evidence for possible future investigations.

Huda Ammori, one of the founders of Palestine Action, which brought the appeal to the high court, called it a “tremendous victory”. He said: “We were banned because Palestine Action’s dismantling of Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, Elbit Systems, cost the company millions of pounds in profits and billions of pounds in contracts.

“Historically, we have used the same tactics as direct action organisations, including the anti-war groups that Keir Starmer defended in court, and the government has acknowledged in these legal proceedings that this ban is based on property damage, not violence against people.

“The Act to Ban Palestine was always about appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups and arms manufacturers and had nothing to do with terrorism… Today’s landmark decision is a victory for freedom for all, and I call on the government to respect the court’s decision and end this injustice without further delay.”

The decision was the first in which an organization banned under the anti-terror law successfully challenged the ban in court.

The judges allowed the appeal on two of four grounds. It was a “very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and that Cooper’s decision to ban Palestine Action was not consistent with his own policy, which must take into account factors such as the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities and the particular threat it poses to the UK.

Sharp described the Palestine Movement as an organization that “promoted its political aim through the promotion of delinquency and criminality”, but added: “The Court was of the opinion that the prohibition of the Palestine Movement was disproportionate. Very few of the Palestine Movement’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Decision.” [Terrorism] To behave.

“The general criminal law remains valid for these and other criminal activities of the Palestinian Movement. The nature and extent of the activities of the Palestinian Movement that fall within the definition of terrorism have not yet reached the level, scale and continuity that would require prohibition.”

About 100 people gathered outside the high court building in central London, cheered and chanted “free Palestine” when they heard the verdict.

Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, who is involved in the case, Amnesty International UK and Liberty have called on Mahmood to respect the court decision.

Saul said adopting the resolution would “ensure that the relevant authorities do not take further action against those who have legitimately expressed their beliefs about Israel and Palestine since July 5, 2025 and have been caught in the implementation of the unlawful ban, as well as apologize to those affected for branding them as terrorists.”

Green Party leader Zack Polanski said: “It’s time for the government to stop criminalizing people protesting genocide.”

Max Wilkinson, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, said: “It was disproportionate to put Palestine Action in the same legal category as ISIS.”

But shadow home secretary Chris Philp backed the government’s decision to appeal because “when it comes to public safety and national security there can be no hesitation”.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council also backed the appeal, saying they were “deeply concerned” by the decision. “Palestine Action has repeatedly targeted Jewish communal institutions, Jewish-owned businesses, or buildings housing Israel-affiliated sites in ways that cause fear and mayhem well beyond the immediate protest areas,” the groups said.

Palestine Action argued that it always targets companies that are complicit in Elbit Systems or complicit in the oppression of Palestinians, regardless of the identity of their owners.

Those arrested following the ban – many for holding banners reading “I am against genocide, I support Palestine Action” – are charged with offenses under Article 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months. Criminal complaints were filed against more than 500 people arrested, including priests, retirees and veterans.

It is a crime to support or be a member of a banned group, and offenses under section 12 of the law carry a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

Mahmood said on Friday: “I I am disappointed with the court’s decision and disagree that the banning of this terrorist organization is disproportionate. The ban on Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process approved by parliament. The ban does not prevent peaceful protests in support of the Palestinian cause, another point on which the court agreed.

“As a former Chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. But home secretaries must retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I plan to challenge this decision in the court of appeal.”