Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The UK government’s contentious ban on Palestine Action under anti-terror laws has been ruled unlawful in a landmark legal victory for civil liberties campaigners.
The High Court in London ruled on Friday that ministers acted unlawfully when they proscribed the direct action network as a terrorist organisation last year alongside groups including al-Qaeda and Hizbollah.
The decision threatens to throw hundreds of criminal prosecutions against Palestine Action supporters into disarray and is a major defeat for Sir Keir Starmer’s government.
Despite the ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division, said that the group “remains proscribed” until further order of the court, “pending the possibility of an appeal”.
Ministers said they had to use anti-terror powers to counter a threat to national security, arguing Palestine Action engaged in an “escalatory campaign” of criminal damage and violence. The Home Office proscribed the group after alleged damage at RAF Brize Norton, the UK’s largest air base.
But Palestine Action supporters argued the ban has had a “chilling impact” on protest rights and freedom of expression over the war in Gaza, which was triggered by Hamas’s October 7 2023 attack on Israel.
The proscription made it a serious crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison to belong to or invite support for the organisation.
More than 2,780 people have since been arrested for expressing support for the group, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries.
Hundreds have been charged, mostly under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, a lesser offence that carries a maximum of six months in prison, for activities such as holding up signs or wearing T-shirts.
The challenge was launched by Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori and she received support in the case from groups including Amnesty International and Liberty.
Ammori’s challenge was brought on four legal grounds. One was that the proscription amounted to a “disproportionate interference” with freedom of expression and protest rights. She said the group’s tactics were part of a long tradition in the UK of civil disobedience.
Her other legal arguments were that the government failed to consult properly, that it failed to consider relevant factors including the level of public support for Palestine Action, and that it failed to comply with its own published policy on proscription.
Cultural figures including author Sally Rooney submitted evidence to the court, which heard the case in November, warning that the ban created legal uncertainty for artists and risked criminalising legitimate political expression.
But the government argued the right to general pro-Palestine protest was unaffected by the proscription. Its lawyers told the court that Palestine Action’s activities passed the statutory threshold for terrorism, in part because serious damage to property met the definition.