London's Court of Appeal has upheld the British government's decision to proscribe the activist group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, rejecting a legal challenge from its co-founder Huda Ammori. The ruling, delivered on Monday, confirms that the ban—imposed on 5 July 2025 under the UK's Terrorism Act—was lawful and not disproportionate, as the group had argued.
Judge Sue Carr, reading the decision, stated that Palestine Action "is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation operating with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy the property of third parties." The court found that the group's methods, including targeting weapons factories and causing significant property damage, justified its inclusion on the government's blacklist alongside Hamas and Hezbollah.
Legal and Political Context
The ban has led to approximately 3,000 arrests, with hundreds of individuals charged and awaiting trial. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the proscription, arguing that supporters were unaware of the "full nature" of the organisation. "It's really important that no one is in any doubt that this is not a non-violent organisation," she said last year. The ruling reverses a February 2025 High Court decision that had sided with Palestine Action, finding the ban disproportionate and a significant infringement on human rights.
Palestine Action, founded in 2020, has focused on disrupting operations at UK-based facilities of Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence contractor. Its website, blocked to UK users, states its goal is to end "global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime." The group gained prominence after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on southern Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
In a related case, a judge on Friday sentenced four activists to prison terms ranging from four years and eight months to seven years and eight months for an August 2024 raid on an Elbit site near Bristol. The activists, wearing red boilersuits, caused over £1 million in damage to computers and drones, and one struck a police officer twice with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. The group claimed they aimed to "dismantle drones and weaponry" they believed would be used to kill people in Gaza.
The ruling has broader implications for European approaches to protest and terrorism legislation. While the UK is no longer an EU member, its legal frameworks often influence debates across the continent. The case echoes discussions in other European capitals about balancing security measures with civil liberties, particularly in the context of pro-Palestinian activism. For instance, Greece recently arrested a Palestinian man in Crete on suspicion of planning a terror attack linked to Hamas, highlighting the continent's heightened vigilance.
Critics of the ban argue it stifles legitimate dissent and conflates non-violent protest with terrorism. Supporters, however, maintain that the group's tactics—including covert operations and property destruction—cross a clear line. The Court of Appeal's decision is likely to be appealed to the UK Supreme Court, but for now, the proscription stands, reinforcing the government's stance on what constitutes lawful protest in a post-October 7 security environment.
