In a pivotal moment for British civil liberties, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the government’s controversial ban on the activist group Palestine Action can be challenged in the High Court, setting the stage for a landmark judicial review next month. The decision, handed down on Friday, October 17, 2025, marks the first time a proscribed organization has won the right to contest its designation under the UK’s Terrorism Act in open court, according to Reuters and BBC.
Palestine Action, founded in 2020 by Huda Ammori and others, has been at the center of heated debates over protest, free speech, and national security since its inception. The group is known for direct, non-violent actions targeting companies linked to Israel’s military industry, particularly the Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems. Their tactics have included spraying red paint, blocking entrances, and damaging equipment, all aimed at protesting what they describe as Britain’s complicity in Israeli military actions in Gaza. The controversy reached a boiling point in July 2025, when the UK government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, making membership or public support a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The government’s decision followed a high-profile incident in which several members broke into RAF Brize Norton air base and damaged two planes. Four activists were charged in connection with the break-in, and the authorities cited this and other acts of property damage as justification for the ban. Since July, the crackdown has been sweeping: more than 2,000 people have been arrested for actions as simple as holding signs reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Over 100 individuals have been charged, and the specter of lengthy jail terms has hung over the movement’s supporters. According to BBC, about 170 protesters have been formally charged with showing support for the group, a charge that can result in up to six months in jail.
The Home Office, led at the time by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, argued that the ban was necessary to protect national security. In a statement after the court’s ruling, a Home Office spokesperson reiterated, “Palestine Action remains a proscribed group and those who support them will face the full force of the law. Everyone should remember: supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing.” The spokesperson further claimed that Palestine Action had conducted “an escalating campaign” involving “sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, as well as intimidation, alleged violence and serious injuries.”
Yet, the government’s efforts to stifle legal review of the ban backfired. The Home Office attempted to force Ammori and her legal team to use the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist and semi-secret tribunal designed for such cases. Critics say the POAC process is slow, opaque, and can take more than a year to reach a conclusion, leaving hundreds of people at risk of prosecution in the meantime. Ammori’s lawyers argued that the scale of public support for Palestine Action and the urgency of the situation demanded a faster, more transparent judicial review in the High Court.
Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, sided with Ammori. In her written judgment, she stated, “An application to deproscribe, with a right of appeal to POAC, was not intended to be a means of challenging the initial decision.” She went on to note, “Judicial review would enable the High Court to give an authoritative judgement on whether or not it was lawful to proscribe Palestine Action. That judgment could then be relied on in criminal courts hearing charges against any person arrested in connection with their support of Palestine Action.” Carr described judicial review as a “quicker means of challenging the order proscribing Palestine Action, than applying to deproscribe.”
The Court of Appeal’s decision not only dismissed the Home Office’s appeal but also expanded the grounds on which Ammori can challenge the ban. As Press TV reported, two new grounds of challenge were added, strengthening the movement’s legal position ahead of the hearing scheduled for November 25, 2025. The three-day hearing could set a precedent for future cases involving the government’s power to suppress dissent under the guise of national security.
For Ammori and her supporters, the ruling is more than just a procedural victory. “The court of appeal has rightly rejected [the former home secretary] Yvette Cooper’s attempt to block a legal review of her absurdly authoritarian ban – while granting us additional grounds on which to challenge it,” Ammori said in a statement reported by Press TV. She went further, calling the verdict a “landmark victory” against what she described as an “authoritarian ban.” Ammori argued, “Arresting peaceful protesters and those disrupting the arms trade is a dangerous misuse of counter-terror resources.” She also emphasized that the court’s decision affirmed the principle that government ministers must be held accountable when they unlawfully curtail fundamental freedoms.
Legal experts and civil rights advocates have hailed the Court of Appeal’s ruling as a major blow to what they see as politically motivated repression. The ban on Palestine Action placed the group on the same list as organizations like Daesh, a move many critics described as a disproportionate interference with the right to free speech and protest. Mr. Justice Chamberlain, who had earlier granted Ammori permission to challenge the ban, found it “reasonably arguable” that the proscription was excessive and that the Home Secretary had failed to consult Palestine Action before imposing the ban—a breach of due process, according to Press TV.
The government, for its part, has remained steadfast. While acknowledging the Court of Appeal’s decision, officials have insisted that the ban will remain in force and that anyone supporting the group will be prosecuted. The Home Office said it would “carefully consider the implications” of the ruling, but gave no indication that it would back down from its hardline stance.
Much of Palestine Action’s activism has focused on Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest military manufacturer, which produces the vast majority of the Israeli military’s land-based equipment and drones. The group’s campaign escalated after October 2023, when Israel launched a full-scale assault on Gaza that, according to Press TV, has resulted in the deaths of around 68,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. This context has fueled passionate debate in the UK about the limits of protest, the meaning of terrorism, and the responsibilities of a democratic government.
As Britain braces for the High Court hearing in November, the outcome could have profound implications—not only for Palestine Action and its supporters, but for the boundaries of protest and dissent across the country. For now, the legal battle continues, and the eyes of activists, civil libertarians, and government officials alike are fixed firmly on the next chapter.
