Court Declares Palestine Action Ban Unlawful and Highlights Tension Between National Security and Protest in London

The UK High Court has delivered a major blow to the government by ruling that the Home Secretary’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful.

The ruling has sparked a mix of relief and controversy, highlighting the tension between national security measures and free speech rights.

Why the Ban Was Controversial

Palestine Action, a protest group known for staging direct actions against companies involved in arms sales to Israel, was proscribed on 5 July last year.

The Home Office classified it alongside terrorist groups such as Islamic State, meaning membership or public support could carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

Judges, however, found the designation disproportionate.

In their view, the group’s activities, while disruptive and sometimes illegal, did not meet the threshold required for terrorism proscription.

The court emphasized that the ban went beyond what was necessary to protect national security.

Public Reactions Outside the Court

The ruling drew a visible reaction in central London, where around a hundred supporters of Palestine Action gathered outside the High Court.

They cheered, waved banners, and chanted “Free Palestine” as the decision was read.

The atmosphere was celebratory, reflecting the court’s recognition of the group’s right to protest without being treated as a terrorist organisation.

Government Pushback

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood responded swiftly, expressing disappointment and signaling that she plans to appeal.

“I disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate,” she said.

Mahmood stressed that the original proscription was based on a detailed, evidence-led process approved by Parliament and that it did not target peaceful protests in support of Palestinians.

The Home Secretary added that government officials must retain the power to act decisively to protect national security and public safety, framing the appeal as a necessary step to maintain that authority.

Palestine Action’s Perspective

During a judicial review hearing in November, founder Huda Ammori defended the group’s record.

She argued that Palestine Action had a long-standing tradition of civil disobedience and direct action, emphasizing that the ban unfairly criminalised protest.

Evidence presented in court highlighted the wide impact of the proscription: more than 2,000 people were arrested after the ban, including priests, teachers, pensioners, retired military officers, and even an 81-year-old former magistrate.

This broad sweep reinforced arguments that the government’s approach had been heavy-handed.

Legal and Social Implications

The High Court’s decision raises important questions about how the UK defines terrorism and balances security with civil liberties.

While the Home Office argued that the proscription disrupted the group’s escalatory conduct, the court concluded that the ban went too far and infringed on legitimate protest rights.

Legal experts suggest this ruling could set a precedent for future cases where government action against activist groups may be challenged on proportionality grounds.

What’s Next?

The Home Secretary has confirmed she will appeal the High Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, supporters of Palestine Action are likely to continue campaigning and protesting without the immediate threat of terrorism charges.

Legal observers will be watching closely to see how higher courts balance national security concerns against civil liberties in the coming months.

Summary

The UK High Court ruled that banning Palestine Action as a terrorist group was unlawful, finding the Home Secretary’s action disproportionate.

The decision sparked celebrations outside the court, while the government vowed to appeal.

The case has highlighted the tension between protecting national security and preserving the right to protest, with thousands affected by arrests under the proscription.

The coming months will reveal whether the government can uphold such bans or whether activist groups regain more freedom to operate.