Court overturns ruling that had quashed Palestine Action’s proscription as a terrorist group
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Home Secretary acted lawfully in proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, overturning an earlier High Court decision that had quashed the ban. In a judgment handed down on 15 June 2026, the court allowed the Government’s appeal and concluded that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was lawful and proportionate. The court also refused an attempt by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori to revive additional challenges to the decision.
Palestine Action was formally proscribed in July 2025 after the Home Secretary concluded that the organisation was “concerned in terrorism” within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000. The group challenged that decision, and in February 2026, the Divisional Court ruled in its favour on two grounds, finding flaws in the Government’s interpretation of its own proscription policy and concluding that the ban disproportionately interfered with rights to free expression and assembly. The Court of Appeal rejected both findings.
The judges held that the Government’s Proscription Policy did not limit the Home Secretary’s ability to consider the operational benefits of proscription. They concluded that ministers were entitled to take into account how a ban could disrupt an organisation’s activities, recruitment, funding, and infrastructure when deciding whether proscription was appropriate.
The court then carried out a fresh proportionality assessment, balancing freedom of expression and freedom of assembly against national security and the rights of others. It acknowledged concerns about the impact of proscription on lawful protest and accepted that some supporters of the Palestinian cause might be deterred from expressing their views because of uncertainty about the law.
However, the judges concluded that those concerns were outweighed by the risks posed by Palestine Action’s activities. The court accepted that the Home Secretary was entitled to conclude that Palestine Action was concerned in terrorism for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000
Particular emphasis was placed on Palestine Action’s “Underground Manual”, which encouraged activists to operate in covert cells, avoid detection, and carry out actions aimed at disrupting, damaging, or destroying targets. The court accepted that the document was capable of supporting the Home Secretary’s assessment of the organisation’s structure and methods.
The judges also highlighted evidence from security and policing bodies that Palestine Action’s campaign had become increasingly serious and was expected to escalate further. The court accepted that the Home Secretary was entitled to rely on evidence from policing and security bodies concerning risks posed by the organisation’s activities.
A significant factor in the court’s reasoning was the Government’s evidence that proscription would provide powers unavailable through ordinary criminal law. The court accepted that the ban would help authorities disrupt the organisation as a network, hinder recruitment and funding, and prevent future attacks more effectively than relying solely on criminal prosecutions after incidents had occurred. The Court of Appeal also rejected arguments that Palestine Action had been treated differently from other protest organisations. It found that those organisations had not been assessed as being “concerned in terrorism” and were therefore not in a comparable position.
In its concluding remarks, the court acknowledged that Palestine Action remained supported by many otherwise law-abiding individuals and that the case was politically controversial. Nevertheless, it held that the Home Secretary was entitled to conclude that the organisation’s activities went beyond lawful protest and that proscription was necessary to protect national security and the rights of others.