Judges have humiliated ministers by insisting Palestine Action should not be banned under anti-terrorism laws in a ruling that has left thousands of its alleged supporters in legal limbo.
The high court said on Friday the government’s proscription of the direct action group was “disproportionate and unlawful” and that most of their activities had not reached the level, scale and persistence to be defined as terrorism.
The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was urged to respect the court’s decision after the three judges said the ban, introduced by her predecessor Yvette Cooper, impinged on the right to protest and should be quashed.
However, the fate of more than 2,500 people, arrested for supporting Palestine Action since proscription, remained uncertain after Mahmood said she would appeal against the ban.
Additionally, the three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, said the banning order would not be quashed until both sides had been allowed to make representations.
In the meantime, the Met police said they would stop arresting people immediately for showing support for Palestine Action after the high court ruling but would gather evidence for potential future prosecution.
Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, who brought the high court challenge, called it a “monumental victory”. She said: “We were banned because Palestine Action’s disruption of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, cost the corporation millions of pounds in profits and to lose out on multibillion-pound contracts.
“We’ve used the same tactics as direct action organisations throughout history, including anti-war groups Keir Starmer defended in court, and the government acknowledged in these legal proceedings that this ban was based on property damage, not violence against people.
“Banning Palestine Action was always about appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups and weapons manufacturers, and nothing to do with terrorism … Today’s landmark ruling is a victory for freedom for all, and I urge the government to respect the court’s decision and bring this injustice to an end without further delay.”
The judgment is the first time that an organisation banned under anti-terrorism law has successfully challenged proscription in court.
The judges allowed the challenge on two of four grounds. They were that there was “a very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and that Cooper’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was not consistent with her own policy, which required her to take into account factors including the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities, and the specific threat that it posed to the UK.
Sharp described Palestine Action as an organisation “that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality”, but added: “The court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate. A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 [Terrorism] Act.
“For these, and for Palestine Action’s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
About 100 people who had gathered outside the high court building in central London cheered and chanted “free Palestine” when they heard the decision.
The UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Ben Saul, Amnesty International UK and Liberty, who all intervened in the case, called for Mahmood to respect the court’s decision.
Saul said accepting the judgment “will enable the relevant authorities to take no further action against those who legitimately expressed their beliefs about Israel and Palestine since 5 July 2025 and were caught up in the policing of the unlawful ban; and also, to apologise to those affected for stigmatising them as terrorists”.
The Green party leader, Zack Polanski, said: “It is time for the government to stop criminalising the people protesting a genocide.”
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, Max Wilkinson, said: “Placing Palestine Action in the same legal category as Isis was disproportionate.”
However, the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, supported the government’s decision to appeal because “there can be no hesitation when public safety and national security are at stake”.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council also threw their support behind an appeal, saying they were “deeply concerned” by the ruling. “Palestine Action has repeatedly targeted buildings hosting Jewish communal institutions, Jewish-owned businesses, or sites associated with Israel, in ways that cause fear and disruption far beyond the immediate protest sites,” the groups said.
Palestine Action has always maintained that it targeted companies complicit with Elbit Systems, or otherwise with the oppression of Palestinians, regardless of the owners’ identity.
Those arrested since proscription – most of them for holding placards saying “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action” – are accused of offences under section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in prison. More than 500 of those arrested, who include vicars, pensioners and military veterans, have been charged.
Showing support for or being a member of a proscribed group is a crime, with offences under section 12 of the act carrying a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
Mahmood said on Friday: “I am disappointed by the court’s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate. The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by parliament. The proscription does not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause, another point on which the court agrees.
“As a former lord chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. Home secretaries must, however, retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the court of appeal.”