UK dispatch: appeals court upholds ban on Palestine Action advocacy group, sparking debate – JURIST

On June 15, the Court of Appeal held that the UK government’s proscription of advocacy group, Palestine Action, was upheld, overturning the High Court’s decision in February that the terror ban was unlawful. 

On June 30, 2025, Palestine Action was designated as a terrorist organisation and banned under the Terrorism Act 2000 by the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. The justifications made by the former Home Secretary included allegations of serious property damage, which she argued fall under Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. 

Section 3(4) of the Act is a wide reaching power, enabling the Home Secretary to exercise independent discretion to designate a group as a terrorist organisation and ban them if she determines that the group is involved in acts of terrorism. 

The Claimant, Ms Ammori, challenged the proscription of Palestine Action under the Act, arguing that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action. She further asserted that the decision breached her rights to Freedom of Expression (Article 10, European Convention of Human Rights) and Freedom of Assembly (Article 11, European Convention of Human Rights). Ms Ammori succeeded at the High Court. However, the decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. 

The five appeals judges reasoned that the Home Secretary did not breach her proscription policy and, as a decision maker, she needed to take into account various factors such as “protecting the public where national security is at stake.” They added, “She has to balance, in the most difficult circumstances, the rights of some individuals to freedom of speech and assembly against the rights of other third parties and the national security of the United Kingdom.”

Additionally, the Court held that “Palestine Action is not an organisation engaged in activities falling within the well-established tradition of peaceful protest,” noting that the group had targeted UK-based international defence enterprises, which the Home Secretary said threatened national security. 

Human rights activists groups, such as Amnesty International, expressed their disappointment in the judgment as a “shameful chapter in our history.” The director of the UK’s legal programme echoed this sentiment, stating that “it is fundamentally disproportionate to treat direct action protest as terrorism.”

Thousands of people have been arrested at demonstrations since the ban came into effect, including people holding placards sharing their views on the atrocities occurring in West Asia. 

Following the proscription, Ms Ammori stated, “we will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.”

The proscription of Palestine Action has led to widespread concern within the legal community over how UK courts apply the rule of law. This decision demonstrates how UK counter-terrorism laws can undermine human rights by giving the executive overly broad powers. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act affords the Home Secretary broad powers to coercively constrain collective liberties.

Courts have not previously applied Section 1(2)(b) of the 2000 Act to proscribe a non-violent group which essentially lowers the “sufficiently serious” threshold for the government to classify a group as a terrorist organisation. Palestine Action has staged protests that have involved criminal property damage at the UK military base, Brize Norton—a key part of the UK’s defence infrastructure. However, debates have ensued over whether the property damage was “sufficiently serious“ enough to fall within the parameters of the Terrorism Act 2000. Critics have argued that alternative methods exist to hold protestors criminally liable for property damage without escalating to proscribing a protest group as a terrorist organisation. The ban has a chilling effect as anyone merely holding a placard to express their views on the matter can now be arrested. Freedom of expression as a human right is under threat in the UK. The draconian ruling calls into question the protection of the rule of law in the UK, and the ability to hold government power to account. 

The effect of the proscription has led to the arrest of 1,630 peaceful protestors. Unrelenting restrictions on civic space have sparked an ongoing legal battle between the Home Office and Ms. Ammori. 

The Supreme Court will have the final say in the matter if Palestine Action receives permission to appeal the judgment.

Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our correspondents in the field and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.