The Court of Appeal has ruled that the UK government lawfully proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000, overturning an earlier High Court decision which had found the ban to be unlawful.
The appeal arose from a challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to designate Palestine Action as a proscribed organisation. The group, known for direct-action campaigns targeting companies linked to the defence industry, had argued that the ban unlawfully interfered with rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest.
In February 2026, the High Court concluded that the government had failed to establish that the group’s activities met the statutory threshold required for proscription and held that the decision was unlawful. The government appealed that ruling.
Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal, Chief Justice Carr held that the Home Secretary’s decision struck a fair balance between the protection of fundamental rights and the State’s interest in safeguarding public safety and preventing terrorism. The Court therefore allowed the government’s appeal.
The Court rejected the characterisation of Palestine Action as a non-violent direct-action organisation. It considered that the group had openly promoted unlawful violence amounting to terrorism and noted that its activities had resulted not only in property damage but also in personal injury. The Court further observed that Palestine Action had not suggested that such conduct was accidental or exceptional.
Chief Justice Carr emphasised that the campaign pursued by the organisation was intended to shut down lawful businesses and that the future risks posed to individuals and property were among the most significant factors supporting the decision to proscribe the group.
The Court acknowledged that the proscription was highly controversial and that Palestine Action enjoyed support from many otherwise law-abiding individuals. However, it concluded that it would be a fundamental error to overlook the nature of the conduct relied upon by the Home Secretary when assessing the lawfulness of the designation.
The ruling leaves in place the ban imposed in July 2025. Since that time, more than 3,000 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action have reportedly been made.
Responding to the judgment, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori stated that she intended to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court and, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights. She described the proscription as a serious restriction on freedom of expression and the right to protest.
The decision also attracted criticism from human rights organisations and campaign groups. Amnesty International described the judgment as deeply disappointing and argued that the use of counter-terrorism powers in this context had significant implications for human rights protections. Campaign group Defend Our Juries likewise criticised the outcome and indicated that it would continue to campaign against the ban.
The judgment represents a significant appellate endorsement of the government’s use of proscription powers and highlights the courts’ willingness, in appropriate circumstances, to uphold restrictions on associational and expressive rights where the statutory criteria for terrorism-related measures are found to be satisfied.
Click here to read the judgment.