Key Takeaways
- The UK Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal against a lower‑court ruling that upheld the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization.
- The ban, which took effect on 5 July 2025 under the Terrorism Act, makes membership in or support for the group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment.
- The Court of Appeal judged in June that Palestine Action operates covertly with secret cells and uses violence to destroy property, rejecting the group’s claim to be a transparent civil‑disobedience movement.
- Huda Ammori, co‑founder of Palestine Action, has been granted permission to appeal and vows to fight the proscription to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary, calling it an extreme attack on free speech and protest rights.
- Since the ban, authorities have arrested roughly 3,000 people for displaying supportive signs, jailed four activists for a £1 million‑plus attack on an Elbit site, and prosecuted others for damaging RAF aircraft at Brize Norton.
- The case raises significant questions about the balance between national‑security legislation and the right to peaceful protest in the UK.
Introduction
The United Kingdom’s highest judicial body, the Supreme Court, announced that it will hear an appeal challenging a lower‑court decision that upheld the government’s proscription of the protest group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The appeal, brought by the group’s co‑founder Huda Ammori, follows a series of rulings that have increasingly tightened the legal restrictions on the organization’s activities. The case now sits at the intersection of counter‑terrorism law, freedom of expression, and the right to protest, promising to shape the future scope of both security measures and civil liberties in Britain.
Legal Background: From High Court to Court of Appeal
In February 2025, the High Court ruled that the government’s ban on Palestine Action unlawfully interfered with freedom of expression, suggesting that the authorities had overreached in applying terrorism legislation to a protest movement. However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in June, affirming that the proscription was lawful. Judge Sue Carr, writing for the appeal panel, concluded that the group’s activities went beyond peaceful civil disobedience and constituted a covert campaign involving violence and property damage. This judicial reversal paved the way for the government’s ban to remain in force while leaving open the possibility of further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Terrorism Act Ban: Scope and Penalties
On 5 July 2025, the Home Secretary exercised powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 to list Palestine Action as a proscribed organization. The designation makes it a criminal offence to be a member of, to invite support for, or to display symbols associated with the group. Conviction can lead to a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. The ban also enables police to seize assets linked to the organization and to prosecute individuals who merely express support, such as by holding placards or sharing online content that the authorities deem as encouragement of terrorism.
Judicial Reasoning: Judge Sue Carr’s Assessment
In her June ruling, Judge Sue Carr was explicit about why the Court of Appeal rejected Palestine Action’s self‑characterisation as a direct‑action civil‑disobedience group akin to the historic suffragettes. She wrote that the organization “is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group … It is a covert organization operating with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy the property of third parties.” The judge emphasized evidence of coordinated, clandestine cells that planned and executed attacks on property, arguing that such conduct fell squarely within the definition of terrorism under UK law rather than legitimate protest.
Appeal Grounds: Huda Ammori’s Challenge
Huda Ammori, who co‑founded Palestine Action in 2020, was granted permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision on Wednesday, as shown on the Supreme Court’s website. In a public statement, Ammori declared, “We will continue to fight this proscription all the way to the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn what has become one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.” Her legal team argues that the ban disproportionately targets lawful political expression and that the evidence of covert violence does not justify sweeping criminalisation of all association with the group.
Enforcement and Impact: Arrests and Prosecutions
Since the proscription came into force, law‑enforcement agencies have reported a sharp increase in actions against individuals linked to Palestine Action. Approximately 3,000 people have been arrested for holding signs or wearing apparel that signals support for the group, including dozens detained outside Westminster Magistrates’ Court on a recent Thursday. In a separate case, a judge sentenced four activists to prison for raiding an Elbit Systems site near Bristol in August 2024, causing over £1 million in damage; one of the defendants struck a police officer twice with a sledgehammer, resulting in a fractured spine. Earlier, in June 2025, activists broke into the Royal Air Force’s Brize Norton base, damaging two military aircraft—a development that the government cited as a immediate trigger for the proscription.
Public Response: Protests, Solidarity, and Civil‑Society Concerns
The ban has sparked a wave of demonstrations across the country, with supporters of Palestine Action gathering to denounce what they view as an unjust restriction on legitimate advocacy for Palestinian rights. Protesters have waved flags, chanted slogans, and distributed leaflets despite the risk of arrest. Civil‑liberties organisations, including Liberty and Index on Censorship, have warned that the sweeping nature of the terrorism designation risks chilling peaceful dissent and could set a precedent for targeting other activist groups under the banner of counter‑terrorism. Conversely, government officials and some security experts maintain that the measures are necessary to prevent violence and protect national security.
Broader Implications: Freedom of Expression and the Right to Protest
At its core, the case tests the limits of the Terrorism Act when applied to organisations that blend political protest with alleged violent acts. A ruling upholding the ban could embolden authorities to pursue similar proscription orders against other groups that engage in disruptive tactics, potentially narrowing the space for lawful protest. Conversely, a decision overturning the proscription would reinforce judicial safeguards against overreach and affirm that mere expression of support—without direct involvement in violence—should not be criminalised. The possibility of an eventual referral to the European Court of Human Rights adds an international dimension, as the UK’s compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights could be scrutinised.
Conclusion: What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming hearing will determine whether the lower courts’ validation of the Palestine Action ban stands or whether the group’s challenge succeeds in restoring a broader ambit for protest activity. Whatever the outcome, the case is poised to become a landmark in the ongoing debate over how democracies balance security imperatives with fundamental freedoms. As the legal proceedings unfold, both supporters and critics of the ban will watch closely, aware that the judgment may influence not only the fate of Palestine Action but also the future landscape of protest law in the United Kingdom.
