On February 13, 2026, a landmark judgment from London’s High Court sent shockwaves through Britain’s political and legal circles, as three senior judges ruled that the government’s ban on the protest group Palestine Action was unlawful. The decision, which found the July 2025 proscription to be both disproportionate and a breach of free speech, has ignited a fierce debate about the limits of protest, the definition of terrorism, and the boundaries of government power in the United Kingdom.
The ruling came after a months-long legal battle initiated by Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori. At issue was the Home Secretary’s move to designate the group a terrorist organization, a decision that had made membership or support for Palestine Action a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The government’s action followed a dramatic break-in at the Royal Air Force’s Brize Norton air base in Oxfordshire in June 2025, where activists protesting British military support for Israel’s offensive in Gaza caused millions of pounds in damage to two aircraft. According to the BBC, the Home Secretary at the time, Yvette Cooper, cited the incident as evidence of “a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action.”
Yet, as the High Court’s judgment made clear, the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities did not meet the threshold required for proscription under the Terrorism Act. The judges, Victoria Sharp, Jonathan Swift, and Karen Steyn, stated in their 46-page ruling, “At its core, Palestine Action is an organization that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act.” However, they concluded that the government’s decision to proscribe the group was “disproportionate” and resulted in a “very significant interference with the right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.”
Despite the ruling, the ban on Palestine Action remains in effect until a consequential hearing scheduled for February 20, 2026, where the government’s appeal will be considered. Until then, it is still an offence to support, fund, or belong to the group. Demonstrators gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the day of the ruling, waving placards reading “we won” and “I’m not a terrorist.” For many, the verdict was a long-awaited vindication. Huda Ammori celebrated outside the court, declaring, “We won. The High Court ruled the Palestine Action ban is unlawful as it is disproportionate to free speech.” She later called the decision “a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.”
The government, however, has shown no intention of backing down. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, echoing her predecessor’s stance, expressed disappointment and resolved to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal. “Supporting the Palestinian cause is not the same as supporting Palestine Action,” Mahmood stated. “The court has acknowledged that Palestine Action has carried out acts of terrorism… and that its actions are not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.” She maintained that the proscription “followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process.”
The ban’s impact has been profound and far-reaching. Since July 2025, more than 2,700 people have been arrested at protests for supporting Palestine Action, and nearly 700 have been charged under the Terrorism Act, according to figures cited by The Guardian. No one has yet been convicted, but the arrests have included priests, vicars, former magistrates, and retired doctors. The campaign group Defend Our Juries described the arrests of 2,787 people—and seven charged for addressing Zoom calls in support of the group—as now being deemed unlawful by the High Court’s logic. Home Office statistics published in December revealed a 660 percent rise in terrorism arrests in the year ending September 2025, with 86 percent linked to support for Palestine Action. The average age of those arrested was 57, a stark contrast to the usual average of 30 for terrorism-related arrests.
Civil liberties organizations and human rights groups have been vocal in their criticism of the government’s approach. Amnesty International, Jewish Voice for Labour, and the United Nations Human Rights Chief Volker Türk all condemned the ban, with Türk labeling it “disproportionate and unnecessary.” Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, hailed the High Court’s ruling as “a shot in the arm for British democracy at a time when it is facing a barrage of attacks by this government to undermine our rights to freedom of assembly, expression, and speech.” She added pointedly, “Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation and should never have been designated a terrorist organisation. Today’s verdict reinforces what many of us have been saying all along—that the government’s misuse of terrorism legislation was a brazen and gross abuse of power that served to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and those profiting from its atrocities.”
Despite the ruling, the legal and political ramifications remain unsettled. Former government lawyer Tim Crosland warned that if the High Court’s decision stands, police forces and the Home Office could face “thousands of legal claims” for unlawful arrest. “The basic principle is if the underlying order is unlawful, then any arrests, any raids, any prosecutions that are based on that order—they are unlawful, too,” Crosland explained to Novara Media. Barrister Audrey Cherryl Mogan noted that the quashing of the ban would not affect ongoing criminal cases against Palestine Action activists, including those acquitted last week of aggravated burglary in connection with a raid on an Elbit Systems arms factory near Bristol. The Crown Prosecution Service is seeking a retrial on charges of criminal damage and violent disorder, while another defendant faces charges of grievous bodily harm with intent for striking a police officer with a sledgehammer.
The policing of protests related to the ban has also come under scrutiny. An analysis of Freedom of Information disclosures revealed that policing of “Lift the Ban” protests in London alone cost the Metropolitan Police £8 million. On February 13, 2026, protesters outside the court were not arrested, though the police stated they would continue to gather evidence for potential enforcement at a later date.
Meanwhile, the government is considering legislative changes to make it easier to ban groups that do not meet the threshold for terrorism. Lord Walney, a former government advisor on political violence, has proposed creating a new category of “Extreme Criminal Protest Group” in amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would allow for broader bans on protest organizations.
As the legal process unfolds, the fate of Palestine Action—and the thousands arrested in connection with it—remains uncertain. The High Court’s judgment has thrown a spotlight on the tension between national security and civil liberties, forcing Britain to reckon with the consequences of its approach to protest and dissent. For now, the group’s supporters and critics alike are left waiting for the next chapter in a story that has already reshaped the landscape of British activism and law enforcement.