On a warm Saturday afternoon in Norwich, the usually quiet surroundings of City Hall became the center of a national debate on protest, free speech, and the boundaries of the law. Thirteen people were arrested on August 16, 2025, for displaying signs and placards in support of Palestine Action, a group recently proscribed by the UK government as a terrorist organization. According to Norfolk Police, officers arrived on the scene at 12:30 pm as a group assembled on St Peters Street, carrying placards and banners that, in the eyes of the law, crossed a critical line.
“Officers were on scene from 12.30pm this afternoon (Saturday 16 August 2025) when a group of people assembled outside of City Hall. They held placards showing support for proscribed terrorist group, Palestine Action. These people were all arrested on suspicion of displaying an item in support of a proscribed organisation, contrary to Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000,” a Norfolk Police spokesperson told local media. Five of those arrested were taken to Wymondham Police Investigation Centre for questioning, while nine others, after providing their details, were de-arrested but remain under investigation. A fourteenth protester had their sign seized and also gave their details to police before the incident was resolved around 2pm.
This protest was not an isolated event. Since the government’s decision to ban Palestine Action on July 5, 2025, rallies and demonstrations have erupted across the country, sparking a wave of arrests and igniting a fierce debate about the limits of protest and state power. The Metropolitan Police reported more than 700 arrests since the ban, with over 500 occurring at a single demonstration in central London the previous week. On Friday, the Met announced that a further 60 individuals would be prosecuted for showing support for the group, and the first three charges under the Terrorism Act had already been brought against protesters arrested in Parliament Square on the day the ban came into effect.
At the heart of the controversy is the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, writing in The Observer, defended the move, insisting the group was “more than a regular protest group known for occasional stunts.” She argued that “counterterrorism intelligence showed the organization passed the tests to be proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act with ‘disturbing information’ about future attacks.” Cooper’s message was clear: “Protecting public safety and national security are at the very heart of the job I do. Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, the government would rightly be condemned for not acting sooner to keep people safe.”
Cooper acknowledged the delicate balance between upholding the right to protest and ensuring public safety. “Protest and free speech remain an important part of our democracy which will always be protected,” she wrote. “That is why the proscription of this group is not about protest or the Palestinian cause. In a democracy, lawful protest is a fundamental right but violent criminality is not.” According to Cooper, only a “tiny minority” of the thousands who have protested in support of Palestinians since the start of the war with Israel have been arrested.
Palestine Action, for its part, has claimed responsibility for a series of high-profile incidents targeting arms companies, especially those linked to the supply of military equipment to Israel. The group’s activities escalated dramatically in June 2025, when activists caused an estimated £7 million in damage to jets at RAF Brize Norton. In August 2024, alleged supporters broke into Elbit Systems UK in Bristol—an Israeli defense firm long targeted by the group—using a repurposed prison van to smash through security fences and damage equipment. That incident left a security guard and two police officers injured. Palestine Action promoted video of the property damage but did not share images of the injuries. Eighteen people face trial in November 2025 for charges including criminal damage, assault causing actual bodily harm, violent disorder, and aggravated burglary. All deny the charges.
The government’s case against Palestine Action has also referenced an “Underground Manual” purportedly circulated by the group, which Cooper said “encourages the creation of cells, provides practical guidance on how to identify targets to attack and how to evade law enforcement.” In her words: “These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group.” The Crown Prosecution Service has assessed that charges arising from these incidents carry a “terrorism connection.”
Yet, the ban has not gone unchallenged. Palestine Action has won permission to contest the government’s decision in the High Court this November, arguing that the ban infringes on the right to free speech and amounts to a gag on legitimate protest. Rights groups, including Amnesty International, have voiced strong concerns. Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, remarked earlier this week, “We have long criticised UK terrorism law for being excessively broad and vaguely worded and a threat to freedom of expression. These arrests demonstrate that our concerns were justified.”
The government’s position is that membership of or support for Palestine Action is now a criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. The Metropolitan Police have stated that arrangements are in place “that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary.”
Meanwhile, the broader context of the UK’s relationship with Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza continues to shape public sentiment. While the UK is not a primary supplier of arms to Israel, it does provide some parts for the F-35 multi-role fighter jet, which has seen extensive use in Gaza. The Royal Air Force has flown hundreds of surveillance flights over Gaza since December 2023, reportedly using Shadow R1 spy planes based in Cyprus. The Foreign Secretary has insisted that these flights have not resulted in the sharing of military intelligence with Israel’s armed forces.
The debate over Palestine Action’s proscription has split public opinion. Some see the government’s actions as a necessary step to prevent violence and protect national security. Others, including civil liberties advocates, worry that the broad application of terrorism laws threatens the right to dissent and protest—especially on issues as contentious and emotive as the war in Gaza.
Superintendent Wes Hornigold of Norfolk Police summed up the dilemma faced by law enforcement: “We will always work to facilitate peaceful protest and protect the democratic right to assembly however the actions of this group were unlawful. Our officers’ role is to prevent disorder, damage and disruption in the local community and they will use their powers to do this. Any breaches of the law will be dealt with.”
As the High Court prepares to hear Palestine Action’s challenge to the ban, and with trials for alleged criminal acts linked to the group looming on the horizon, the United Kingdom finds itself at a crossroads. The outcome will likely set a precedent for how the government, police, and courts balance the imperatives of national security, public safety, and the cherished right to protest in an age of heightened political and social tension.
