The ongoing legal and political battle over the United Kingdom’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation has reached a critical juncture, drawing national attention and sparking heated debate about civil liberties, government authority, and the boundaries of protest. At the heart of the controversy is Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, who has mounted a high-profile legal challenge against the Home Office following Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws. The ban, enacted in early July 2025, makes membership or support for Palestine Action a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, a move that has triggered widespread protests, legal wrangling, and fervent public discourse.
The immediate catalyst for the government’s action was a dramatic incident on June 20, 2025, when Palestine Action claimed responsibility for damaging two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton. Authorities estimated the damage at £7 million, and Home Secretary Cooper, speaking on June 23, condemned the act as “disgraceful.” According to PA Media, Cooper’s swift announcement of the group’s proscription came just days after the incident, reflecting the government’s determination to send a clear message about the consequences of direct action that crosses into property destruction.
For Ammori and her supporters, however, the ban represents a grave threat to fundamental rights. She promptly launched legal proceedings against the Home Office, arguing that the proscription constituted a disproportionate interference with her rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The legal battle has been anything but straightforward. Ammori first sought a temporary injunction to block the ban from coming into effect, but lost her bid in the High Court in early July. The Court of Appeal then dismissed her appeal less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5, 2025.
Yet, the story took a dramatic turn on July 30, when Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled that Ammori could proceed with her legal challenge. The judge found two of Ammori’s arguments to be “reasonably arguable”: first, that the proscription might amount to a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and assembly; and second, that Home Secretary Cooper may have breached natural justice by failing to consult Palestine Action before making the decision. “As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose,” Mr Justice Chamberlain stated, adding, “Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.”
However, the judge refused to allow challenges on other grounds, including claims that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action’s activities or to assess the impact of the ban on those associated with the group. The legal challenge is now set for a three-day hearing in November 2025, but the Home Office has been granted permission to appeal Mr Justice Chamberlain’s decision. Lord Justice Underhill, in a court order issued in August, acknowledged the strength of Mr Justice Chamberlain’s reasoning but concluded that “the appeal has a real prospect of success.” He emphasized that it was “highly desirable” for the appeal to be heard “as soon as possible,” scheduling the hearing for September 25, 2025, ahead of the original November proceedings.
The stakes are high, not only for Ammori and Palestine Action but also for the broader landscape of protest and civil liberties in the UK. Ammori has been sharply critical of Home Secretary Cooper’s approach, arguing that the ban has created a “chilling effect on freedom of speech” and led to “hundreds facing prosecution under the Terrorism Act.” She warned of the potentially far-reaching consequences of the proscription, stating, “Whilst this has already been catastrophic for the civil liberties of the general public, we still don’t know the full extent of the unforeseen consequences by this proscription.” She further accused Cooper of seeking to avoid scrutiny by pursuing the appeal, saying, “By doing so, the Home Secretary is trying to avoid scrutiny of her decision and is asking for chaos in the criminal courts.”
Representing Ammori, Raza Husain KC did not mince words, describing the ban as making the UK “an international outlier” and “repugnant.” He argued before the court that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action bore “the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.” These strong words underscore the sense of alarm among civil liberties advocates, who see the case as a bellwether for how far the government can go in curbing dissent under the banner of national security.
The Home Office, for its part, has vigorously defended the ban. Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department, argued in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was “squarely” within the scope of the terrorism laws used in proscription. The government has also pointed out that Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary’s decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court—a procedural point that speaks to the complexity of the legal landscape surrounding such bans.
Beyond the courtroom, the ban has sparked widespread public protest. According to PA Media, more than 700 people have been arrested and over 100 charged during the summer of 2025 in connection with demonstrations against the proscription. Several hundred protesters are preparing to take to the streets in London, Belfast, and Edinburgh on the weekend following September 4, holding signs that read “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Organisers have made the coordinated action contingent on at least 1,000 people pledging their support, though reports suggest that hundreds more are planning to participate regardless.
The government’s move has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum. Some argue that the ban is a necessary response to actions that cross the line from protest into criminality and potentially terrorism, pointing to the extensive damage at RAF Brize Norton as evidence that the group’s tactics have escalated beyond acceptable bounds. Others, however, see the proscription as a dangerous overreach that threatens to stifle legitimate dissent and erode hard-won civil liberties. The fact that the ban was imposed so swiftly after the June 20 incident has fueled suspicions among critics that the government acted precipitously, without adequate consultation or consideration of the broader implications.
As the appeal hearing approaches, all eyes are on the courts to see how they will balance the competing imperatives of security and freedom. The outcome will not only determine the fate of Palestine Action and its supporters but will also set a precedent for how the UK handles contentious protest movements in the future. For now, the legal and political drama continues to unfold, with no clear resolution in sight.
This case stands as a vivid reminder of the tensions that can erupt when government power, civil rights, and protest collide, leaving the nation to grapple with fundamental questions about democracy, dissent, and the rule of law.
