Palestine Action’s co-founder has won a significant legal challenge against the government’s decision to ban the group as a terrorist organisation, marking a major moment in the debate over protest, civil liberties and the limits of state power in the UK.
Palestine Action was proscribed by the Home Office after a decision taken by then home secretary Yvette Cooper, with the ban coming into force on 5 July last year. The move placed the group on the same legal footing as internationally recognised terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. Under UK counter-terrorism legislation, membership of — or support for — a proscribed organisation can carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Even wearing clothing bearing the group’s name or carrying a placard in its support can attract a maximum sentence of six months.
The legal challenge was brought by Huda Ammori, the group’s co-founder, who argued that the proscription was unlawful and disproportionate. Over a three-day hearing at the High Court, her legal team described the ban as unprecedented in modern British history. Raza Husain KC, representing Ammori, told the court that the measure had swept up “priests, teachers, pensioners, retired British Army officers” and even an “81-year-old former magistrate” in its wake. According to the Defend Our Juries campaign, which has organised protests against the ban, 2,787 people have been arrested across the UK since the proscription took effect.
Ammori’s lawyers drew comparisons between Palestine Action and the suffragettes, arguing that disruptive direct action has long been a feature of British protest movements. They contended that criminalising expressions of support for the group amounted to an unjustified interference with freedom of expression and association, rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act.
The case also drew support from prominent cultural figures. Irish novelist Sally Rooney, author of the bestselling novel Normal People, submitted written evidence to the court backing the challenge. Rooney stated that she had been warned she could risk committing a terrorism offence after publicly indicating that she would donate earnings to support Palestine Action. She suggested that, under the current legal framework, such a donation could be interpreted as material support for a proscribed organisation — a situation she said might prevent her from publishing future books in the UK.
The Home Office defended its position robustly. Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department, argued that the proscription struck “a fair balance between interference with the rights of the individuals affected and the interests of the community”. He told the court that the ban had not prevented individuals from protesting against Israel’s actions in Gaza or expressing support for Palestinians more broadly. According to the government’s case, lawful protest remained open to all, provided it did not involve support for the specific organisation that had been proscribed.
However, Eadie also noted that some individuals had “repeatedly sought to flout Palestine Action’s proscription” rather than challenge it through lawful means. The government’s position was that the ban targeted the group’s activities and structure, not the broader political cause it claims to represent.
The High Court’s ruling in favour of Ammori on two grounds represents a significant rebuke to the government’s handling of the proscription process. While the full legal implications of the judgment are still being assessed, the decision raises fundamental questions about how counter-terrorism powers are applied in domestic political contexts — and whether equating activist networks with organisations such as ISIS and al-Qaeda can withstand judicial scrutiny.
For civil liberties campaigners, the case underscores concerns about the breadth of the UK’s terrorism legislation and the potential chilling effect on political speech. For ministers, it highlights the delicate balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding democratic freedoms. As the fallout from the judgment continues, it is likely to reignite debate in Parliament and beyond about the appropriate limits of protest, dissent and state authority in modern Britain.
