In a landmark judgment that strikes at the heart of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, the High Court has ruled the proscription of the protest group Palestine Action is unlawful.

The ruling represents a significant check on executive power, affirming that the definition of terrorism cannot be arbitrarily expanded to encompass civil disobedience. It raises profound questions about the balance between national security and the fundamental democratic rights of speech and assembly. For the activists who have faced arrest and imprisonment, this decision is a vindication of their argument that their direct action tactics, while disruptive, do not constitute terror.

A Victory for Civil Liberties

The challenge was brought by Huda Ammori, the co-founder of the group, who argued that the decision by former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to ban the organization was a draconian overreach. The ban, implemented in July 2025, had placed Palestine Action in the same legal category as groups like ISIS, making membership a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Presiding over the case, Dame Victoria Sharp delivered a stinging rebuke to the Home Office. She stated that the proscription "did result in a very significant interference with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly." The court found that the government had failed to demonstrate that the group’s activities—which primarily involve occupying factories and disrupting supply chains linked to Israeli defence firms—met the high threshold of terrorism defined by the Act.

• Legal Precedent: This is the first time a direct action protest group has successfully challenged a terrorist proscription in the UK courts, setting a powerful precedent for future civil liberties cases.
• Immediate Impact: The ruling throws into question the legality of over 2,000 arrests made since the ban came into force, potentially opening the floodgates for wrongful arrest claims.

The Government’s Case Collapses

The Home Office had argued that the group’s "pattern of escalatory conduct" necessitated the ban to protect public safety. Government lawyers claimed that the group’s actions went beyond protest and entered the realm of intimidation and serious damage to property. However, the court was unconvinced that these actions equated to terrorism.

Ammori’s legal team painted a different picture, describing the group’s activities as part of an "honourable tradition" of civil disobedience. They argued that conflating property damage with terrorism was a dangerous slippery slope that could criminalize a wide range of legitimate political dissent. The court heard evidence that the ban had a chilling effect, deterring ordinary citizens—including priests, teachers, and pensioners—from exercising their democratic rights.

A History of Direct Action

Palestine Action has been a thorn in the side of the defence industry for years. Their tactics are confrontational and disruptive, often involving the physical occupation of factories to halt the production of components used in military equipment. While controversial, these methods have drawn attention to the UK’s role in the global arms trade.

"This ban was a Trumpian abuse of power," Ammori declared outside the court. "Today, the judiciary has reminded the government that they are not above the law." Despite the ruling, the ban technically remains in place pending a further order from the court, but its legal foundation has been shattered. The government is now left to pick up the pieces of a failed policy that sought to silence dissent with the blunt instrument of counter-terrorism law.