On the 13th of February, a Judicial Opinion at the Royal High Courts of Justice on the appeal of Huda Ammori (co-founder of Palestine Action) challenging the proscription of the group by then Home Office Secretary, Yvette Cooper under anti-terrorism laws. The case was also supported by human rights groups, such as Liberty and Amnesty International UK.
Founded in 2020, Palestine Action (PA) was established as an organisation using direct action to achieve the aims of ending global participation in Israel's "genocidal and apartheid regime." PA was accused on being a terrorist organisation and proscribed by Yvette Cooper on the 5th of July 2025, following 3 actions in Glasgow, Kent and Bristol and the action against the RAF Base (in Oxfordshire). An attempted immediate appeal to overturn the proscription was rejected; but a later appeal was allowed and this Judicial Opinion is the result of that appeal.
As a result of this Judicial Opinion by three Senior Judges, (Dame Victoria Sharp, Mr Justice Swift and Ms Justice Steyn), of the Royal Courts of Justice decided that the proscription of Palestine Action (PA) should be overturned. They gave the UK government until the 20th of February to appeal the decision. At the moment, Palestine Action is still banned pending potential government action. The current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will appeal. Police have said they will not continue to arrest protestors opposing the ban, but will continue “gathering evidence.”
The impact of this decision by Yvette Cooper and the leadership of the Labour Party has once again demonstrated the overreach and incompetence of the Labour government under Keir Starmer and represents a major set-back to rising suppression of civil and human rights in Britain (unless the Reform Party wins the next election) …
The Judicial Review
The Judicial review argued that the proscription against Palestine Action fell on two general points. The court judgement declared that the proscription of the group by then-Home Office Secretary Yvette Cooper was unlawful because it was disproportionate and it also violated the Human Rights of members and supporters of PA.
1. Disproportionate Action by Government
Using the Terrorism 2000 Act, the following definition of terrorism and Terrorist Action are used:
“Terrorism” is defined at section 1 of the 2000 Act as the “use or threat ofaction” when the use or threat is “designed to influence the government … or to intimidate the public or a section of the public” and “is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”. “Action” is also a defined term. By section 1(2) of the 2000 Act (so far as is material forpresent purposes) action must involve either “serious violence against a person” or “serious damage to property (page 7, Judicial Review)”.
Despite the fact that the Judicial Review accepted that Palestine Action used criminal activities to achieve its aims and to encourage others to commit criminal activities to do so (with the release of its Underground Manual on its site which gave instructions as well as classes offering how to do direct action) and hence used violence, this didn’t sway their opinion. However, its actions had never reached the level of damage to property and sustained activity such that would be appropriate to proscribe PA.
In point of fact, the Judicial Review argued that there were already existent criminal laws that could have been used against the members of the group and that proscribing it was disproportionate in terms of the overall actions of the group; of the 385 direct actions the group conducted, only 3 actually crossed the limits into an action (in 2024-5) that could be defined as terrorist as the cost of repair or replacement was in the millions. This is not to claim that these actions are not illegal; but are they signs of an escalation into a further level of terrorism did they represent a threat to national security and people of the UK, as the government claimed?
In its conclusion on page 44 of the Judicial Order, we find the Judges’ answer:
“139. For those actions, regardless of proscription, the criminal law is available to prosecute those concerned. If those involved are convicted they face the prospect of significant punishment, which would serve as a significant deterrent to others. For example, the CTP report noted that the ordinary criminal offences with which Palestine Action activists have been charged have most commonly included criminal damage (section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, for which the maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment), burglary (section 9 of the Theft Act 1968) and aggravated trespass (section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994). In respect of the two incidents in 2024, which the Home Secretary assessed fell within the definition of “terrorism”in section 1 of the 2000 Act, offences of aggravated burglary (section 10 ofthe Theft Act 1968, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment) and violent disorder (section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986, for which the maximum sentence is 5 years’ imprisonment) were charged, as well as specific charges against certain individuals, such as a charge of committing grievous bodily harm with intent (section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment) against one defendant involved in the Bristol incident.
140. Considering in the round the evidence available to the Home Secretary when the decision to proscribe was made, the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities, so far as they comprise acts of terrorism, has not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify the application of the criminal law measures that are the consequence of proscription, and the very significant interference with Convention rights consequent on those measures (P 44, Judicial Order).”
The proscription was disproportionate in terms of the use of anti-terrorist laws against PA whose actions the Home Secretary described as “escalating” and a threat to the National Security of the UK; if the military industrial production sector is seen as part of national security and workers do not want to work in the sector because members of PA are talking to them or throwing paint on their cars; that could be considered a“threat.” Let’s pretend to forget the notion of just transition away from fossil fuel sectors and military industrial production for the moment (as clearly that doesn’t seem relevant to the current Labour government).
Given that the actions of PA which were composed of direct actions against Elbit (Elbit Ltd is the UK division of an Israeli military producer Elbit; with 16 subsidiaries in the UK) and the break-in by members of PA onto an RAF Brize Norton Base where red paint was sprayed on 2 RAF planes, did they constitute a disproportionate overreach by Yvette Cooper and PM Keir Starmer? Yes, the justices ruled that the then Home Secretary broke her own laws (that is the laws of the UK) in proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation:
“We do not consider that this submission properly captures the policy’s meaning. The substance of the policy (under the heading “What determines whether proscription is proportionate?”) is that the Home Secretary will decide whether to proscribe an organisation taking account of the five stated factors and/or other matters that are relevant. Four of the five factors stated on the face of the policy concern the characteristics of the organisation: its size, the activities it undertakes and the threat the organisation presents. The fifth stated factor engages consideration of foreign policy. In this context, taking those matters into account must mean weighing them against the consequences of proscribing the organisation. Since the objective of proscribing an organisation is that that organisation should cease to exist, the policy requires the Home Secretary to weigh the “benefits” that would achieve, by reference to the five stated factors or other factors of the same nature, against the “cost” of proscription. That cost is the impact of the proscription decision on others, for example in terms of interference with freedom of assembly and freedom of expression and speech and any other interests that are affected by the criminal offences that either arise on proscription or are otherwise brought into play (see above at paragraphs 13 and 14) (page 26 of Judicial Review).”
2. Human Rights Violations
The second point which the claimants won on was that the Judicial Order accepted that the proscription severely impacted the Human Rights (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of protest and freedom of association) of members and supporters of Palestine Action.
Defend our Juries Protest, Trafalgar Square, September 2025
The point is that it was obvious that proscription, by definition, will impact human rights, that is what it is designed to do. So, this included not only being a member of PA, it would include supporting them verbally and in writing, trying to get information out about their appeal would be illegal, trying to raise money for court cases by speaking to a meeting is illegal. The point is to make the group disappear.
“The offences under section 12(1) and (1A) and (3) of the 2000 Act entail significant interference with the article 10 right to receive and impart information. A person cannot “invite support” for Palestine Action or express an opinion or belief “supportive” of Palestine Action if he is reckless whether the person hearing it will be encouraged to support Palestine Action. Nor can a person address a meeting to encourage support for Palestine Action or further its activities. The offence under section 13 of the 2000 Act also impinges on article 10 rights. These interferences too apply to everyone. Taken in the round, these comprise a very significant interference with the right to free speech (page 34).”
Many people who were not members of Palestine Action joined actions (let’s call them civil disobedience) that were organised by the group Defend our Juries; this group came into existence over the convictions of environmental protestors, there is a very old law in Britain that if you are on a jury you do not have to convict is the prosecution conflicts with your beliefs). Over 2700 people have been arrested for holding handwritten signs saying:
“ I oppose genocide! I support Palestine Action!”
defend our juries protest arrest … September 2025 .. sign on ground
These protestors are mentioned in the Judicial Order referring to the Home Secretary’s insistence that they are in violation of her order banning Palestine Action and hence their human rights are not relevant as UK judges cannot rule on International Law (see Judicial Order, page 37) …
“115. In any event, this case is primarily concerned with the rights of individuals who have not acted unlawfully either before or since proscription, who would have wanted to express support for and associate with Palestine Action – whose stated aim is “to stop genocide and other atrocity crimes by causing disruption to corporate actors who aid, abet, facilitate and profit from those crimes” – and who wished to engage in peaceful protests under the banner of Palestine Action, but are stopped from doing so. It cannot sensibly be said that such persons are seeking to deflect the article 10 and 11 rights from their real purpose by employing them for ends contrary to Convention values. Nor could that be suggested in respect of others, such as journalists, academics and civil society organisations who are conscientiously seeking to abide by the law, and whose rights are impacted. The Home Secretary’s article 17 submission fails.”
According to The Independent, the British government has spent over £750,000 fighting the Palestine Action legal ban against Huda Ammori, this doesn’t include the money spent on bringing in police from all over the country to conduct arrests of people participating in the Defend Our Juries protests that the police have said cost £3.6 million. All that money, all that repression and they still lost this battle. Let’s see what happens when Shabana Mahmood requests an appeal of this decision … it is like this government just doesn’t learn. They have brought the Labour Party into disrepute internationally and domestically, yet they refuse to say that they have made an appalling overreach and apologise for this latest pile of crap. Really, how many times can someone say oops?!
PA hunger Strikers Solidarity.
Members of Palestine Action were denied bail and were being held in Prisons for over a year without trial, they obviously opposed the proscription against Palestine Action and had demands that they wanted to speak to the government about. 8 went on hunger strike; one for over 73 days. Emulating Margaret Thatcher’s viciousness against North Irish Political Prisoners, the UK Labour government refused to talk to them; it looked like they were going to let these young people die to prove that they were what … psychopaths?!
On day 73, Heba Muraisi finally stopped her hunger strike, Kamran Ahmed followed her as did Lewie Chiaramello, after the UK government did not give a £2 billion defence contract to Elbit.
Heba Muraisi
