On November 26, 2025, the United Kingdom’s High Court prepares to hear a landmark legal challenge that has set off passionate debate across the country. At the heart of the case is Huda Ammori, cofounder of the activist group Palestine Action, who will argue against the UK government’s proscription of her organization as a “terrorist” entity. The case, which follows months of escalating civil disobedience and over two thousand arrests, is being closely watched by activists, legal experts, and the broader public for its implications on protest rights, counter-terrorism legislation, and the role of the UK in the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
The controversy began in July 2025, when the UK government, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, banned Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. This marked the first time in British history that a direct action group had been officially labeled as a terrorist organization. The government’s decision came on the heels of a series of headline-grabbing protests, including a June break-in at the RAF Brize Norton military base in Oxfordshire, where activists sprayed red paint on Voyager aircraft allegedly linked to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and an August 2024 attack on Elbit Systems’ Bristol facility, where drones were reportedly destroyed.
Since the ban, being a member of or expressing support for Palestine Action has become a criminal offense, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. According to Al Jazeera, more than 2,000 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act, most for simply holding signs that read, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” For many, the government’s approach has crossed a line, raising urgent questions about freedom of speech, the right to protest, and the definition of terrorism itself.
Huda Ammori, speaking to Al Jazeera, did not mince words about the government’s motives. “Proscribing Palestine Action wasn’t done to protect the public, it was done to crush dissent and defend the Israeli weapons industry,” she said. “This is an opportunity for the courts to right the wrongs that the government has done, and reinstate a bit of sanity. If we are not successful, we will continue to fight the ban, and I am sure that ultimately, we will win.”
The legal challenge gained momentum last month when the Court of Appeal found reasonable grounds to argue that the proscription order interferes with rights to freedom of speech and protest. If Ammori’s judicial review is successful, the ban could be lifted, potentially ending a months-long campaign of civil disobedience and the ongoing wave of arrests. The hearings are scheduled to begin Wednesday, with further sessions on Thursday and December 2.
Yet, the judicial process itself has not been without controversy. Just days before the hearing, it was reported by The Guardian that Judge Martin Chamberlain, widely respected for his “fairness and independence,” was unexpectedly removed from presiding over the case. Instead, a panel of three judges will now hear the challenge. This last-minute change has prompted concern among legal experts and activists, who question the transparency and impartiality of the judicial system. Tayab Ali, a partner at the law firm Bindmans, called for “a clear and credible explanation for such a change,” while Emily Apple of Campaign Against the Arms Trade argued that the replacement “raises serious questions about impartiality and transparency in our judicial system, particularly in cases concerning Palestine.”
The broader context of the trial is the UK’s ongoing military, trade, and diplomatic ties with Israel. According to a report by Cage International, the UK government continues to support Israel’s war in Gaza, providing components for F-35 jets and operating surveillance flights over the territory. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded in July 2024 that Israel’s prolonged presence in the occupied Palestinian territory breached international law, and found it plausible that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide. Since October 2023, Israeli military action has killed at least 69,733 Palestinians and wounded over 170,000, according to Al Jazeera. The UK’s involvement, activists argue, makes the government complicit in these actions.
Palestine Action’s campaign has targeted what it calls “the specific nodes that make war possible: manufacturers, insurers, logistics providers, financiers, universities, lobbyists, and government infrastructure.” Notably, the group’s sustained actions led to the temporary shutdown of Elbit Systems’ Bristol site, which produces equipment allegedly used by the Israeli military in Gaza. As Cage International’s report put it, “Direct action has been neither random nor gratuitous. It has been focused on the specific nodes that make war possible.”
Lex Korte, legal coordinator and cofounder of Defend Our Juries, a group organizing protests against the ban, described the government’s move as deeply political. “The reason there are protest groups is because our government isn’t listening to what the continuous protests are about,” Korte told Al Jazeera. He criticized the UK’s definition of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000 as “way too vague,” pointing out that it can include acts of criminal damage that do not involve violence against people. “Inviting arrest with your behaviour and with that kind of method, we’re highlighting the unjust nature of the proscription of Palestine Action,” Korte said.
The legal and political stakes are high. If the judicial review finds in favor of Palestine Action, it could set a precedent for how the UK handles dissent and the use of counter-terrorism legislation. If not, activists have vowed to continue their fight, confident that public consciousness is shifting. Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at Cage, told Al Jazeera, “The proscription of Palestine Action went beyond the bounds of what the public would tolerate. It backfired precisely because the greater community consciousness has shifted. People could see with their own eyes what is happening in Gaza, and they recognise those acting to stop British participation in such acts.”
Meanwhile, the trial of Samuel Corner, a Palestine Action activist, is also underway, focusing on an alleged sledgehammer attack on police during a protest at Elbit Systems’ UK site. Bodycam footage of the incident, shown in court and reported by Sky News, has become a key piece of evidence. The case underscores the increasing tension between activist movements and legal boundaries, as well as the risks faced by those who choose direct action as a means of protest.
As the High Court hearings unfold, the outcome will resonate far beyond the courtroom. For many, the judicial review is not just about the fate of one activist group—it’s a test of Britain’s commitment to civil liberties, the right to dissent, and its moral responsibilities in a world where the lines between activism and criminality are being redrawn.
