Government defends Palestine Action ban after High Court ruled it unlawful

Legal Challenge and Appeal Process

Government defends Palestine Action ban after – Two months after the High Court declared the ban on Palestine Action unlawful, the government has reaffirmed its stance, asserting that the measure remains justified under anti-terrorism laws. A rare five-judge panel at the Court of Appeal is now deliberating on whether the decision to reject the group’s proscription should be upheld. This hearing marks the continuation of a legal battle that has drawn significant attention to the balance between counter-terrorism authority and civil liberties.

Government’s Argument for the Ban

Barristers representing the home secretary opened the three-day defence of the ban by emphasizing the importance of preserving ministers’ ability to act decisively in counter-terrorism matters. They argued that overturning the ruling would undermine the government’s capacity to address potential threats effectively. The government’s legal team also highlighted the distinction between Palestine Action and groups like Hamas or the IRA, where there is a clear overlap between those engaged in terrorist activities and their supporters. According to the barrister, the ban was necessary to prevent support for more extreme actions within the organization.

“The rights of those who would otherwise wish to support Palestine Action are affected… maybe they don’t even support the more extreme activities and/or wing of Palestine Action,” said Sir James Eadie KC, the government’s counsel, addressing the court. He explained that the proscription regime is designed to recognize the value of preventing such support, even if it comes from individuals who may not endorse the most radical elements of the group.

Impact on Protest Rights

During the proceedings, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, posed a critical question to the government’s lawyer: did the ban represent an unusual exercise of power due to its effect on the right to protest by otherwise legitimate demonstrators? Sir James Eadie KC responded by acknowledging the significance of the issue but maintained that the legal framework allows for such measures when an organization is deemed to be “concerned in terrorism.” He further stated that Parliament was fully aware of the extensive powers granted to the secretary of state in this regard.

Statutory Definition and Expert Assessment

Sir James emphasized that Palestine Action had met the statutory criteria for being “concerned in terrorism,” based on expert findings that indicated the group’s activities were on an escalating trajectory of seriousness. The lawyer argued that the home secretary’s decision was supported by the necessary evidence, including the group’s targeted actions against the UK operations of Elbit, Israel’s largest defense firm. This objective, established since the group’s founding in 2020, has been central to its legal justification.

“Parliament was alive to the fact that those powers conferred on the secretary of state were significant powers,” Sir James noted in his address to the judges. “Palestine Action met the statutory definition of being concerned in terrorism,” he added, reinforcing the argument that the group’s actions warranted the ban.

High Court’s Ruling and Policy Breach

Despite the government’s defense, the High Court had previously determined that Palestine Action was not an “ordinary protest group” but one that “promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality.” However, the court found that the home secretary’s ban exceeded her policy guidelines, which outline the conditions under which the exceptional power of proscription can be applied. While the group remains banned temporarily, the appeal process continues to determine its legal standing.

Protest Activities and Damage Caused

Written submissions to the Court of Appeal revealed the scale of Palestine Action’s activities between August 2024 and the June 2025 ban. During this period, the group organized 158 “direct action events” targeting 48 different business premises. On 28 occasions, protesters caused damage exceeding £50,000, and 158 individuals were arrested as a result. These figures underscore the intensity of the group’s engagement in protest tactics, according to the legal documents presented.

Counter-Terrorism Chiefs’ Assessment

Counter-terrorism authorities have maintained that Palestine Action operates across the entire country, with its influence and activities extending to multiple regions. In March 2025, they submitted a recommendation to the home secretary, arguing that the ban would effectively contain the group without infringing upon the right to protest by peaceful pro-Palestinian organizations. This perspective highlights the government’s belief in the necessity of the measure for national security.

Protesters’ Presence at the Court

During the hearing, dozens of pro-Palestine protesters gathered outside the court, displaying signs that opposed genocide and supported Palestine Action. While there was no mass display of placards comparable to the over 3,000 arrests recorded since the July 2025 ban, the presence of demonstrators underscored the public’s divided opinions on the issue. The group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, has consistently defended Palestine Action as a legitimate protest organization involved in civil disobedience, challenging the government’s characterization of its activities.

Legal Battle and Future Arguments

The Court of Appeal is expected to conclude its review of the case over the next two days, with Palestine Action’s co-founder presenting their arguments on Wednesday. This ongoing appeal reflects the broader debate about the limits of counter-terrorism powers and their application to groups engaged in political activism. Legal experts and civil society advocates will be closely watching the outcome to determine whether the ban will be upheld or revoked, potentially reshaping the landscape of protest and security in the UK.