On October 17, 2025, a pivotal legal battle unfolded in London as the British government lost its attempt to block a High Court challenge to its controversial ban on Palestine Action, a pro-Palestinian direct action group. The decision, handed down by the Court of Appeal, has ignited a fierce public debate over the boundaries of protest, counter-terrorism legislation, and free speech in the United Kingdom.
At the heart of the dispute is Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, who was granted permission to contest the government’s July 2025 decision to proscribe the group under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000. The ban, which makes membership or public support for Palestine Action a criminal offense, has already led to the arrests of more than 2,100 protesters, with over 170 formally charged. Some have been prosecuted simply for holding signs reading, "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action," according to reporting from BBC and Reuters.
The government’s move to proscribe the group followed a series of high-profile direct actions by Palestine Action targeting Israeli-linked companies, especially Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest defense contractor. The group is known for blockading facilities, spraying red paint, and damaging equipment as part of its campaign to disrupt what it calls the "arms industry" in Britain. In June 2025, several members broke into the RAF Brize Norton air base and damaged two planes, an incident that was cited by the government as a key reason for the ban. Four members now face charges related to that action.
Britain’s Home Office, led at the time by the interior minister, argued that such acts—though framed by activists as protest—amounted to terrorism due to their scale and impact. The proscription order, which came into effect on July 5, 2025, carries a maximum sentence of 14 years for membership or support. A Home Office spokesperson told BBC, "Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign. This has involved sustained criminal damage, including to Britain's national security infrastructure, as well as intimidation, alleged violence and serious injuries. Palestine Action remain 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."
But critics—including Amnesty International UK, Liberty, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk—argue that the ban is an overreach, blurring the line between legitimate protest and terrorism. Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty International UK’s director of campaigns and communications, stated, "There are serious human rights concerns around the proscription decision and the consequences it has had on free speech and assembly rights." Both Amnesty and Liberty have announced plans to intervene in the upcoming judicial review, raising urgent concerns about what they see as the disproportionate use of government terrorism powers.
Huda Ammori herself has been vocal in her criticism of the ban and the government’s legal maneuvers. After the Court of Appeal’s decision, she posted on X (formerly Twitter), "The government LOST their appeal and failed to stop the legal challenge of the Palestine Action ban. That means the Judicial Review will go ahead on November 25-27th. Not only that, but we won TWO MORE grounds to argue the illegality of the ban. Huge victory." She added in a formal statement, "It’s time for the government to listen to the overwhelming and mounting backlash … and lift this widely condemned, utterly Orwellian ban."
The legal wrangling has highlighted the complexity of the UK’s anti-terrorism framework. Traditionally, groups banned under the Terrorism Act can seek "deproscription" through a Home Office review, a process that can take months and then, if unsuccessful, be appealed to a specialist tribunal—the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC). Government lawyers argued this was the proper route for Palestine Action. However, Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, rejected this argument, ruling that a judicial review in the High Court would be a "quicker means of challenging the order proscribing Palestine Action, than applying to deproscribe." She wrote, "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."
The outcome means that Ammori and her legal team can present expanded arguments before the High Court in November, challenging the ban on additional grounds beyond those initially permitted. "We now head into the judicial review in November with an even stronger legal footing," Ammori said, according to BBC. She contends that the government’s attempt to sidestep judicial scrutiny has "backfired spectacularly." Ammori also asserts, "Arresting peaceful protesters and those disrupting the arms trade is a dangerous misuse of counter-terror resources."
Palestine Action, founded in 2020, describes itself as "a pro-Palestinian organisation which disrupts the arms industry in the United Kingdom with direct action," and is "committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime." The group’s activities—and the government’s crackdown—have played out against the backdrop of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. Since October 2023, Israeli military operations in Gaza have killed nearly 68,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, according to Anadolu Agency. The war, which began after a Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, led to a two-year campaign that only recently saw a ceasefire agreed between Israel and Hamas.
Supporters of the ban, including Britain’s former interior minister Yvette Cooper (now foreign minister), maintain that violence and criminal damage have no place in legitimate protest. Cooper has previously stated, "Violence and criminal damage have no place in legitimate protest." The government’s position is that public safety and national security must come first, and that the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act has been met.
On the other side, critics warn that the government’s actions risk criminalizing dissent and undermining fundamental democratic rights. They argue that property damage, while unlawful, does not constitute terrorism, and that the state’s response is a dangerous precedent for the treatment of protest movements more broadly. United Nations officials and civil liberties organizations have pointed to the chilling effect on free speech and assembly, particularly for those expressing solidarity with Palestinians.
With the judicial review now set for November 25-27, 2025, the High Court will be tasked with weighing these competing arguments. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the right to protest, the scope of anti-terrorism powers, and the future of direct action movements in the UK.
As the legal battle intensifies, both sides are preparing for a landmark case that will test the limits of protest and government authority in modern Britain. The eyes of activists, policymakers, and international observers alike will be fixed on the High Court this November, awaiting a verdict that could reshape the landscape of British civil liberties for years to come.
