On Friday, February 13, 2026, a landmark High Court ruling reverberated through British politics, challenging the government’s controversial decision to proscribe the protest group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The ruling, handed down by Dame Victoria Sharp, declared the ban “unlawful and disproportionate,” a judgment that has not only sparked legal uncertainty but also reignited fierce debate among politicians, law enforcement, and activists across the country.
Palestine Action, a direct-action protest group known for targeting UK-based defense companies linked to Israel, was officially proscribed on July 5, 2025, by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. The ban, which made it a criminal offense to be a member of or even to show support for the group, carried penalties of up to 14 years in prison. According to The Scotsman, the government’s move was prompted by a series of high-profile, sometimes violent protests—including a raid on a defense company that saw a police officer attacked with a sledgehammer. Yvette Cooper, now Foreign Secretary, has repeatedly defended her decision, insisting, “I followed the clear advice and recommendations, going through a serious process that the Home Office goes through, involving different agencies and police advice as well, which was very clear about the recommendation for proscription of this group.”
Despite Cooper’s insistence that Palestine Action was “not a normal protest group” and that it had “committed acts of terrorism” and “promoted violence,” the High Court’s 46-page judgment painted a more nuanced picture. As reported by The Daily Mail, Dame Victoria Sharp acknowledged that while “a very small number” of the group’s 385 direct actions since 2020 amounted to terrorism, the sweeping ban on the organization was disproportionate. The court found that, although Palestine Action “promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality,” its actions did not justify the full weight of the law reserved for terrorist organizations.
The legal ramifications of the court’s decision are significant. Since the ban took effect, more than 2,700 people have been arrested for holding signs or displaying messages supporting Palestine Action, according to the protest group Defend Our Juries. The High Court’s ruling opens the door for the charges against these individuals—many of whom participated in one of the largest campaigns of civil disobedience in recent UK history and the biggest prison hunger strike since the Irish republican hunger strike of 1981—to be dropped. As The Guardian noted, the judgment is “a massive blow to the government,” undermining the legal foundation for ongoing prosecutions and raising questions about the use of anti-terror laws against protest movements.
Yet the story is far from over. The ban on Palestine Action remains in place while the government prepares an appeal. Current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood wasted no time in announcing her intention to challenge the High Court’s decision. “It is right that the Home Secretary appeals this deeply disappointing verdict which risks sending a signal that far left activists can hold the country to ransom,” said Lord Walney, an independent government advisor, echoing concerns from the right of the political spectrum. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel, a prominent supporter of the proscription, told Sky News, “It is right that they feel the full force of our laws, including the proscription that has been put in place. They are on par with how terrorist organizations conduct themselves, and they plan their attacks. I think the public would be absolutely horrified to see that these individuals have been able to essentially get away with the type of activity that they have been able to thus far.”
Not all voices in Parliament are in agreement. Twenty-six Labour MPs and peers have urged the government not to proceed with the appeal, arguing that the ban constitutes an overreach and risks criminalizing legitimate protest. This split underscores the broader tensions within the Labour Party and the UK’s political establishment over how to balance national security concerns with the right to protest—a debate that has only intensified in the wake of the High Court’s intervention.
The Metropolitan Police, caught between conflicting legal directives, has signaled a shift in its approach. While the ban technically remains in force, a police spokesperson explained, “Officers will continue to identify offences where support for Palestine Action is being expressed, but they will focus on gathering evidence of those offences and the people involved to provide opportunities for enforcement at a later date, rather than making arrests at the time. This is the most proportionate approach we can take, acknowledging the decision reached by the court while recognizing that proceedings are not yet fully concluded.” Laurence Taylor, head of Counter Terrorism Policing, indicated that enforcement of the proscription would now be handled “pragmatically,” suggesting a possible suspension of arrests until the legal situation is clarified.
For Yvette Cooper, the stakes are personal as well as political. Pressed by journalists to disclose the specific advice she received before proscribing Palestine Action, Cooper declined, stating only, “I was given significant evidence and advice around risks of violence and risks from public safety, and that is what you take seriously. If you ignore advice that you are given about risks to public safety then you’re really not taking seriously the responsibilities of home secretary.” Her remarks reflect the pressures faced by ministers tasked with making high-stakes decisions in the face of evolving threats and public scrutiny.
The saga of Palestine Action’s proscription has exposed deep divisions—not just between political parties, but also within them—over the boundaries of protest, the definition of terrorism, and the proper use of state power. While some, like Lord Walney and Priti Patel, argue that the group’s tactics cross a red line and warrant the full force of anti-terror legislation, others question whether such measures are justified or effective in a democratic society. The fact that only a “very small number” of the group’s actions were deemed to rise to the level of terrorism raises uncomfortable questions about proportionality and the chilling effect on dissent.
As the government prepares its appeal, thousands of activists and supporters await clarity on their legal status, and police forces across the country adjust their tactics in real time. The outcome of this high-profile legal battle will likely have far-reaching consequences—not only for Palestine Action and its supporters, but for the future of protest and civil liberties in the United Kingdom.
With both sides digging in and the legal process grinding forward, the fate of Palestine Action’s proscription remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the debate it has sparked will continue to shape British politics, policing, and protest for years to come.