Key Takeaways
- The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal is set to rule on whether the government’s July 2024 proscription of Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation was lawful.
- Palestine Action, founded in 2018, uses disruptive, non‑violent tactics to target companies it says enable Israel’s military, claiming millions of pounds in criminal damage.
- In February 2025 the High Court declared the ban unlawful and disproportionate, but the proscription remains in force pending the government’s appeal.
- Four Palestine Action activists were sentenced in May 2025 to four‑to‑eight‑year prison terms after a judge linked their August 2024 raid on an Elbit Systems facility to “terrorism,” exposing them to lifelong terrorism‑related restrictions.
- Human‑rights groups, Amnesty International, and over 130 public figures have condemned the sentencing as disproportionate and warned that treating property damage as terrorism threatens fundamental protest rights.
- An open letter signed by lawyers and law professors from the UK, Netherlands, Norway and Canada stresses that linking direct‑action protest to terrorism has no precedent in UK jurisprudence and risks authoritarian overreach.
- The Court of Appeal’s decision will determine whether the terrorism label stands, influencing future prosecutions of activist groups and the scope of UK counter‑terrorism legislation.
Background on Palestine Action and Its Proscription
Palestine Action is a British protest network established six years ago that describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime.” The group adopts a self‑styled “disruptive” approach, targeting what it calls “corporate enablers” of Israeli weapons manufacturing. Its campaign focuses on firms such as Elbit Systems (Israel), Leonardo (Italy), Thales (France) and Teledyne (United States), all of which have UK‑based facilities linked to defence contracts. Since its inception, Palestine Action has organised a series of high‑visibility actions—including roof occupations, factory break‑ins and paint‑spraying military aircraft—aimed at drawing attention to what it views as complicity in the Gaza conflict. British authorities claim these actions have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage. In July 2024, following a parliamentary vote after the Brize Norton RAF base incident, the Home Office formally proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, placing it in the same legal category as armed groups such as al‑Qaeda and ISIL.
Details of the Group’s Protest Activities and Alleged Damage
Palestine Action’s protest record includes several notable incidents. In 2021, activists occupied the roof of Elbit Systems’ subsidiary, UAV Tactical Systems in Leicester for six days before police removed them. The following year, the group broke into a Thales equipment factory in Glasgow, inflicting damage valued at over £1 million ($1.3 m) on weapons‑related equipment. In 2024, ten months into Israel’s war on Gaza, Palestine Action activists entered an Elbit Systems UK site near Bristol, causing another £1 million in damage. Most dramatically, on 20 June 2025, members sprayed red paint on two military aircraft at the Royal Air Force base at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Days after this act, MPs voted to proscribe the organisation. While the group stresses that its actions are non‑violent and aimed at property rather than persons, police and prosecutors have highlighted the financial impact, arguing that the scale of damage justifies a terrorism designation under the UK’s broad definition of terrorist activity, which includes acts intended to intimidate the public or advance a political, ideological, religious or racial cause.
Legal Proceedings: High Court Ruling and Government Appeal
The proscription was challenged in the High Court by Palestine Action’s co‑founder, Huda Ammori, who filed a judicial review in August 2024. After a three‑day hearing in November, the High Court delivered its judgment in February 2025, ruling that the government’s decision to label the group a “terrorist” organisation was both unlawful and disproportionate. The judge concluded that the ban infringed on the group’s rights to freedom of expression and association, and that the evidence did not meet the stringent threshold required for a terrorism proscription. Despite this ruling, the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced an immediate appeal, stating she disagreed with the court’s assessment and intended to defend the ban in the Court of Appeal. Importantly, the High Court’s decision did not automatically lift the proscription; the ban remains in effect while the appeal proceeds, leaving Palestine Action’s members subject to terrorism‑related restrictions and potential prosecution.
Court of Appeal Hearing: What’s at Stake
The Court of Appeal’s forthcoming judgment, expected on Monday, will examine whether the High Court correctly applied the legal tests for proscribing an organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Central to the appeal is the question of whether Palestine Action’s conduct—primarily property damage carried out during protests—can be characterised as “terrorism” given the absence of direct violence against individuals. The government argues that the group’s actions are intended to intimidate and coerce the public and government policy regarding Israel, thereby satisfying the terrorism definition. Palestine Action’s legal team contends that the law was never meant to cover non‑violent direct action and that extending terrorism labels to property‑damage protests creates a chilling effect on legitimate dissent. The outcome will determine whether the terrorism designation stands, whether the group can continue to operate without facing terrorism‑related charges, and whether the UK will maintain a precedent that equates substantial civil disobedience with terrorist activity.
Sentencing of Four Activists and Terrorism Designation
Parallel to the appeal, four Palestine Action activists—Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Zainab Rajwani—were sentenced in May 2025 after a jury convicted them of criminal damage stemming from the August 2024 raid on the Elbit Systems facility in Filton, near Bristol. While the convictions were for property damage, Judge Jeremy Johnson exercised discretion to link the conduct to terrorism, imposing sentences ranging from four years eight months to seven years eight months. Samuel Corner, who also struck a police officer with a sledgehammer and was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm, received the longest term. The terrorism label triggers a suite of lifelong obligations: the activists must register any new mobile device, email address or bank account with police, are barred from certain employment and travel, and risk re‑incarceration if they breach licence conditions. Amnesty International denounced the sentences as “completely disproportionate,” arguing that treating property damage as terrorism marks a dangerous escalation in the UK’s handling of protest.
Criticism and Concerns from Human Rights Organizations and Legal Experts
The sentencing and ongoing proscription have attracted widespread criticism. More than 130 high‑profile public figures—including academics, artists and politicians—have spoken out against the ban, asserting that peaceful protest, even when disruptive, should not be conflated with terrorism. Amnesty International’s UK chief executive, Kerry Moscogiuri, warned that the ruling risks establishing a “new low” in the crackdown on dissent and stressed that criminal damage has never before been prosecuted as terrorism in the UK. In addition, an open letter signed by over fifty lawyers and law professors from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway and Canada, together with dozens of practising barristers and solicitors, argued that linking direct‑action protest to terrorism has no historical precedent and replicates tactics used by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent. The letter highlights that historic movements—from the Suffragettes to Extinction Rebellion—have relied on property damage as a form of civil disobedience without being labelled terrorist, underscoring the potential for misuse of counter‑terrorism statutes.
Broader Implications for Protest Rights and Counterterrorism Laws
If the Court of Appeal upholds the government’s proscription, it would signal a significant expansion of how the UK applies terrorism legislation to non‑violent activist campaigns. Such a ruling could embolden authorities to pursue terrorism charges against a broader spectrum of protest groups, potentially undermining the right to peaceful assembly protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Conversely, a decision overturning the ban would reinforce judicial safeguards against overreach, affirming that terrorism laws require a clear nexus to violence or the threat of violence rather than merely substantial property damage. The case also raises questions about the proportionality of sanctions: lifelong reporting obligations and imprisonment for acts that, while costly, do not involve physical harm may be seen as punitive rather than preventive. Legislators and civil‑rights advocates may use the outcome to push for clearer statutory guidance or amendments that distinguish between violent terrorism and disruptive, non‑violent direct action.
Conclusion and Outlook
The Court of Appeal’s ruling on Monday will be a pivotal moment for Palestine Action and for the broader landscape of protest law in the United Kingdom. While the group’s actions have undeniably caused significant financial damage, the core legal debate hinges on whether non‑violent, property‑focused dissent can be legitimately classified as terrorism. A decision to uphold the proscription would mark a stark shift toward treating expansive civil disobedience as a security threat, likely prompting further legal challenges and international scrutiny. A reversal, by contrast, would reaffirm the judiciary’s role in guarding against the overextension of counter‑terrorism powers and could encourage a more nuanced approach to balancing public safety with the right to protest. Whatever the outcome, the case will undoubtedly shape future discussions about the limits of state power, the protection of dissent, and the appropriate scope of terrorism legislation in a democratic society.