On Friday morning, the United Kingdom's High Court ruled that the Home Office acted unlawfully in banning Palestine Action under terrorism legislation. The decision, delivered at London's Royal Courts of Justice, could unravel hundreds of criminal cases brought against the group's supporters.
The challenge was brought by the group's co-founder, Huda Ammori, who argued that the proscription breached her fundamental rights. The court agreed, finding that the ban interfered with her rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, the Metropolitan Police announced it would stop arresting protesters simply for displaying signs in support of Palestine Action. However, officers will continue to gather evidence while the government considers its next steps, including a possible appeal.
The judgment was delivered on Friday morning at the Royal Courts of Justice by Dame Victoria Sharp. The court concluded that the ban was disproportionate. It found that the nature, scale and persistence of Palestine Action's activities did not meet the threshold required for proscription under terrorism legislation.
Despite this, the court stopped short of lifting the ban with immediate effect. Instead, it ordered that the proscription — which came into force on 5 July 2025 under the Terrorism Act 2000 — should remain temporarily in place. The pause is intended to allow further legal arguments to be heard and to give the government time to consider and pursue an appeal. For now, membership of or support for the direct-action group remains a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has indicated that the government intends to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal.
Palestine Action had been the first direct-action protest group to be banned under the legislation, placing it in the same legal category as organisations such as al-Qaeda, Islamic State and the far-right group National Action. Over 2,000 people have been arrested in connection with alleged support for the organisation, and around 200 are facing terrorism-related charges.
In reaching its decision, the court ruled against the Home Office on two principal grounds. Among its criticisms was the finding that the home secretary had failed to adequately explain the specific advantages of proscribing the organisation, undermining the legal basis for such a severe measure.
The ruling now opens the door to a wider legal and political reckoning. With an appeal expected, the case is poised to test the boundaries between national security powers and the right to protest — and could carry far-reaching consequences for counter-terrorism policy, civil liberties and the hundreds of cases already working their way through the courts.
The court's full judgment sets out in detail the reasoning behind the decision and the limits it places on the government's use of proscription powers.