In a groundbreaking legal decision that has sent ripples across British politics, civil liberties communities and international observers, the Palestine Action ban imposed by the British government has been declared unlawful by the UK High Court as of February 13, 2026. Senior judges determined that the government overreached its authority when it designated the protest organisation as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000, a judgment that could have profound implications for civil liberties, protest rights, and the use of counter-terrorism laws in the United Kingdom.
Background: The Ban That Sparked Controversy
The saga began in June–July 2025, when the UK government, led by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, moved to classify Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. The decision followed a series of high-profile protests and direct actions by the group, which has been critical of British military support for Israel during its conflict with Hamas in Gaza. In one notable incident, activists allegedly broke into the RAF Brize Norton airbase in Oxfordshire, where they reportedly sprayed red paint on two military aircraft and caused property damage. This, officials argued, demonstrated a pattern of conduct that could qualify under the broad definitions of terrorism set out in UK law.
Once proscribed in July 2025, Palestine Action was placed on the same statutory list as internationally recognised extremist organisations, such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. This meant that membership, support, promotion, or even public expressions of solidarity with the group became criminal offences potentially punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The Legal Challenge: A Fight for Civil Liberties
Responding to the ban, Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, launched a legal challenge, arguing that the proscription was disproportionate, lacked proper consultation, and breached fundamental rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)—particularly freedoms of expression, assembly and association. Her legal team contended that the government’s decision represented an abuse of anti-terrorism legislation and a dangerous expansion of state powers into the domain of legitimate protest.
In autumn 2025, the legal battle gained momentum as courts repeatedly rejected government attempts to restrict judicial review, clearing the way for a full hearing on the proscription’s legality. Judges ruled that the case could proceed in the High Court rather than be relegated to internal tribunals, a significant procedural victory that placed the dispute in a more robust judicial setting.
High Court Judgment: A Rebuke of Government Overreach
On Friday, February 13, 2026, a panel of three senior judges—including Dame Victoria Sharp—ruled that the government’s decision to outlaw Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful. The court found that the ban constituted a disproportionate interference with the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed under British law and human rights standards.
In its judgment, the High Court explicitly stated that the scale and nature of the group’s activities did not reach the level of violence and organised terror necessary to justify proscription under the Terrorism Act. While it acknowledged that members may have engaged in acts of criminal damage, the judges emphasised that such conduct did not equate to terrorism in the strict legal or conventional sense.
The ruling underscored that placing an activist organisation—whose primary aim was political change through direct action—on the same list as violent extremist groups was an excessive and unjustified use of counter-terrorism powers. It recognised that such categorisation undermined not only the rule of law but also the essential democratic principle of allowing dissent and protest.
Arrests, Protests, and the Chilling Effect
Since the proscription took effect in July 2025, British police have arrested thousands of people for alleged terrorism offences connected with expressions of support for Palestine Action. Many of these arrests reportedly involved non-violent acts such as holding banners, chanting slogans, or attending demonstrations—raising deep concern among human rights advocates.
Human Rights Watch and organisations like Amnesty International UK have criticised the government’s approach, arguing that using terrorism laws to suppress civil protest sets a dangerous precedent. They warn that such measures could have a long-term chilling effect on public debate, peaceful assembly, and the democratic space for dissent.
Government Response and the Road Ahead
Despite the High Court’s ruling, the ban on Palestine Action remains temporarily in place while the government considers whether to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. UK Interior Minister Shabana Mahmood expressed deep disappointment with the judgment, maintaining that the proscription was essential for national security and public safety. Her office has signalled an intention to challenge the ruling, highlighting the government’s perspective that such measures are necessary to deter actions that could harm people or critical infrastructure.
The outcome of any appeal will not only determine the legal status of Palestine Action but also shape the broader contours of how protest, civil disobedience, and national security intersect under British law.
Broader Implications: Democracy, Security, and Protest Rights
This landmark judgment has ignited debate across legal, political and civic spheres:
Civil liberties advocates argue it is a victory for freedom of expression and a check against executive overreach.
Protest movements view the ruling as a reaffirmation of democratic rights.
Government and security officials maintain that the judgment may constrain their ability to respond to politically motivated campaigns that escalate into criminal acts.
International human rights observers have also weighed in, warning that misapplication of anti-terrorism legislation could undermine democratic norms and international human rights obligations. Some critics describe the ban as putting the UK in the company of other states that have used broad security laws to clamp down on dissent.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for UK Civil Liberties
The High Court’s decision to declare the ban on Palestine Action unlawful marks a defining moment in the UK’s legal history, spotlighting the tension between state security powers and fundamental democratic freedoms. As the government prepares to potentially appeal, legal experts, activists, and civil rights organisations will be watching closely. The case may well establish key legal precedent for how future governments balance national security concerns with the protection of peaceful protest and freedom of expression—an issue at the heart of any functioning democracy.
For now, the judgment is being heralded by supporters as a victory for civil liberties, while critics of the government’s approach view it as a long-overdue legal correction to an overbroad use of terrorism laws.
0 Comments