ON
← Back to feed
United KingdomTechnology6 days ago

High Court to rule on Palestine Action terror group ban

The UK Home Office is appealing a High Court ruling that declared unlawful the ban on Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The court found that the previous home secretary's decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful after a legal challenge by the group's co-founder. The ban, which imposed criminal penalties for supporting the group, remains in effect while the appeal proceeds. Lawyers for the Home Office argue that the court overstated the human rights implications of the ban, while those representing the activist argued less restrictive alternatives to

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the decision to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is lawful

11:41, 15 Jun 2026 Updated 12:26, 15 Jun 2026

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Government's decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws is lawful.

It comes after three judges at the High Court ruled in February that then-home secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to ban the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful, following a legal challenge brought by the group's co-founder, Huda Ammori.

The ban, which came into force on July 5 last year, made membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. It has remained in force while the Home Office attempted to challenge the ruling.

On Monday, five Court of Appeal judges ruled that the ban was a "justified and proportionate" interference on freedom of expression rights.

In a summary of the decision, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, said the High Court had "materially understated the position" when considering how much latitude the home secretary had when deciding whether to proscribe.

The judge later said that comparisons to groups such as the suffragettes were "seriously flawed".

Baroness Carr, sitting with Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Edis, Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Whipple, said: "There is a distinction between the expression of an opinion or belief that is supportive of the objective of an organisation… and an expression of an opinion or belief that is supportive of an organisation itself."

In the appeal, Sir James Eadie KC said in written submissions for the Home Office that "the line between criminality, sometimes violent criminality, and terrorism is not a bright one", and that the criminal law had "demonstrably failed" to prevent the escalation of the group’s activities.

Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said in written submissions that the High Court was right to find that the ban on the group did not correctly balance the human rights involved and that it had created a "culture of fear" among campaigners for Palestinian rights.

Hundreds of people have been arrested at demonstrations after displaying placards or wearing badges and T-shirts expressing support for Palestine Action.

The Chief Magistrate has put a pause on the progress of criminal cases for those charged, with a review hearing due to take place on June 30.

The Court of Appeal’s decision comes after four Palestine Action activists were jailed for raiding the UK factory of Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.

Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, smashed up computers, drones and other equipment before police and security intervened.

Corner struck police officer Kate Evans twice on the back with a sledgehammer, leaving her with a fractured spine.

Mr Justice Johnson gave the four activists prison sentences of between seven years and eight months and four years and eight months, with each also spending an extra year on licence.

During the hearing on Friday, the judge ruled that the raid amounted to an "act of terrorism".

In a statement following Monday's ruling, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said that she intended to take the case to the UK Supreme Court.

She said: "We are surprised by today’s judgment, after a panel of senior judges on the High Court, including the President of the King’s Bench Division, decisively ruled that the Government acted unlawfully in proscribing Palestine Action because of the significant interference with the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

"We will fight this all the way. We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights.

"We are confident we will ultimately succeed because criminalising peaceful political protest in this way is a flagrant violation of our fundamental rights and freedoms in Britain, protected in the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the European Convention of Human Rights."

She added: "We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.

"This unprecedented abuse of power has devastated the lives of thousands of people while silencing dissent over Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people during the genocide, when that dissent could not be more urgent.

"This is the first time in British history that a civil disobedience group has been proscribed as a ‘terrorist’ organisation, placing Palestine Action alongside Isis and Boko Haram despite the fact that we do not advocate violence and exist to save lives by disrupting the supply of weapons used by Israel against the Palestinian people."

Palestine Action was founded in 2020 with the stated goal of ending global participation in Israel's "genocidal and apartheid regime".

Article continues below

Israel has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza - over 21,0…

Read the full article at Daily Mirror
Source document: Court of Appeal ruling

3 reports

Novara MediaIndependentCenter6 days ago
Court of Appeal Re-Proscribes Palestine Action

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Home Secretary's decision to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The article includes an interview with Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori discussing the implications of this ruling. Additional segments cover a schoolgirl's suggestion for entertainment amid new social media restrictions by Starmer, and confirmation from Iran that Trump's claim regarding a new peace deal is accurate.

Bias read (Center): The article reports on a legal decision without overtly favoring any political side. It includes perspectives from multiple individuals but does not present biased language or selective sourcing.

Official sources cited

  • court Court of Appeal ruling
Daily MirrorParty-alignedCenter6 days ago
Palestine Action terror ban to remain in place after High Court ruling

The Court of Appeal has upheld the legality of the UK government's decision to ban the group Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. The ruling follows a previous High Court decision that found the ban unlawful. The Court of Appeal stated that the ban was a 'justified and proportionate' measure and criticized the High Court for underestimating the discretion of the home secretary in making such decisions.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the court rulings and quotes from the judges without overtly favoring either side. It reports on the legal proceedings and includes statements from both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, providing a balanced account of the legal arguments and outcomes.

Official sources cited

  • court Court of Appeal Ruling
  • court High Court Decision
The IndependentIndependentCenter6 days ago
High Court to rule on Palestine Action terror group ban

The UK Home Office is appealing a High Court ruling that declared unlawful the ban on Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The court found that the previous home secretary's decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful after a legal challenge by the group's co-founder. The ban, which imposed criminal penalties for supporting the group, remains in effect while the appeal proceeds. Lawyers for the Home Office argue that the court overstated the human rights implications of the ban, while those representing the activist argued less restrictive alternatives to

Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the legal dispute without overtly favoring one perspective. It includes quotes from both the Home Office lawyers and the activists' barristers, providing balanced representation of their arguments.

Official sources cited

Go to the primary sources (5)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.