Background on Palestine Action and Its Direct Action Campaign
Palestine Action emerged in July 2020 as a pro-Palestinian direct action network dedicated to disrupting what it describes as complicity in Israel's military activities. Co-founded by Huda Ammori, a British activist of Palestinian and Iraqi descent, and Richard Barnard, the group quickly gained notoriety for targeting Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer with significant operations in the United Kingdom. Elbit produces drones, surveillance equipment, and other military hardware, much of which the group claims is used in conflicts involving Palestine.
From its inception, Palestine Action organized occupations, blockades, and property damage at Elbit factories and related sites. Notable early actions included a six-day roof occupation at an Elbit drone factory in Leicester in May 2021 and vandalism that contributed to the permanent closure of an Elbit subsidiary in Oldham by early 2022. The group's tactics escalated over time, incorporating sledgehammers for smashing equipment, spray-painting premises red to symbolize blood, and lock-ons to halt operations. By mid-2025, they claimed responsibility for over 385 direct actions, many resulting in substantial financial losses for targeted companies.
The 'Underground Manual,' a publicly available guide published by the group, outlined strategies for covert operations, cell structures, and effective property disruption. It encouraged activists to target not just Elbit but also suppliers, banks like Barclays (which divested from Elbit in October 2024 following protests), insurers, and logistics firms aiding arms shipments. While most actions involved criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 or aggravated trespass, a handful crossed into what authorities later deemed terrorist acts under the Terrorism Act 2000, such as the 2022 attack on Thales UK in Glasgow, causing over £1 million in damage to submarine components.
The UK Government's Proscription Decision
In June 2025, amid heightened tensions over the Gaza conflict and a series of high-profile incidents, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced the proscription of Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This followed advice from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) and Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP), who assessed the group as 'concerned in terrorism' due to participation in terrorist acts, preparation for terrorism, and encouragement thereof.
Key incidents cited included the Glasgow Thales attack, a 2024 raid on Instro Precision in Kent involving serious property damage, and a violent break-in at Elbit's Bristol facility where sledgehammers were used and staff assaulted. A particularly audacious action occurred on June 20, 2025, when activists infiltrated RAF Brize Norton, the UK's largest airbase, spraying red paint into the engines of two Airbus A330 MRTT refueling planes using modified fire extinguishers. This was framed by the group as protesting British complicity in Gaza.
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 was laid before Parliament on July 1, 2025, bundled with two far-right groups: Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. It passed with overwhelming support—385 to 26 in the Commons—and took effect on July 5, 2025. Proscription criminalized membership (up to 14 years imprisonment), inviting support, arranging meetings, and even displaying supportive items (up to 6 months). For the first time, a domestic protest group was equated legally with international terrorist organizations like ISIS or al-Qaeda.
Home Secretary Cooper emphasized that 'violence and criminal damage have no place in legitimate protest,' while affirming rights to free speech and Palestinian advocacy. The move was ideologically neutral, targeting threats regardless of motivation.
Immediate Fallout: Arrests and Legal Challenges
Proscription triggered a wave of enforcement. Over 3,000 individuals were arrested for alleged support, including more than 2,700 for holding signs like 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action' at vigils. Mass arrests occurred at Parliament Square (521 in August 2025), central London marches, and silent protests. More than 500 faced charges, with some remanded or bailed under strict conditions.
Ten activists embarked on hunger strikes lasting up to 73 days in prisons like Belmarsh and Whitemoor, protesting mistreatment and demanding the ban's lift. High-profile figures, including Greta Thunberg (arrested December 2025 in solidarity), rallied support. The Metropolitan Police initially softened enforcement post-ruling but reversed course, arresting over 200 in London in April 2026 alone.
Huda Ammori filed a judicial review on June 27, 2025, challenging the proscription on multiple grounds, including procedural unfairness, failure to consider alternatives, and human rights violations. Permission was granted, with interveners like Amnesty International UK, Liberty, and UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism.
High Court Ruling: A Landmark Victory for Protest Rights
On February 13, 2026, a Divisional Court comprising Sir Brian Leveson (President of the King's Bench Division), Mr Justice Swift, and Mrs Justice Steyn ruled the proscription unlawful on two grounds. First, the Home Secretary breached her own policy by considering 'operational advantages' of proscription—such as new offenses under sections 11-13—as justification, rather than strictly assessing the threat's nature, scale, and UK impact from terrorist acts alone.
Second, it disproportionately interfered with European Convention on Human Rights Articles 10 (expression) and 11 (assembly/association). Applying the Bank Mellat test, the court acknowledged PA's terrorist involvement but deemed existing laws (e.g., life sentences for aggravated burglary) sufficient. Only a 'very small number' of 385 actions qualified as terrorism, lacking the persistence to warrant proscription's 'nuclear option.'
The full High Court judgment detailed PA's escalation but stressed alternatives like civil injunctions or enhanced policing. The order was quashed, but stayed pending appeal to avoid uncertainty.
Ammori hailed it a 'monumental victory for Palestinian freedom,' while Liberty called it a rebuke to overbroad terror laws.
Government Seeks Permission to Appeal
On February 25, 2026, the High Court granted the Home Office permission to appeal, recognizing arguable errors in proportionality and policy application. Now under Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, the government argues the ruling undervalued PA's encouragement of terrorism via its manual and publicity, and that proscription's deterrence is essential against escalation.
Counsel James Eadie KC contends the High Court misapplied policy, as operational benefits are inherent. The appeal, listed for two days starting April 28, 2026, at the Court of Appeal, will scrutinize whether PA's activities justify the ban despite less intrusive options. Liberty intervened again, urging dismissal.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Divided Opinions
Supporters view proscription as state repression silencing Gaza criticism. Amnesty International's 2026 report lambasted UK use of terror laws against protesters amid ongoing arms exports to Israel. Over 130 figures—including Sally Rooney, Ilan Pappe, and Thunberg—signed a defiant letter last week: 'We oppose genocide, we support Palestine Action,' risking prosecution.
Critics, including defence firms and officials, praise the ban for protecting infrastructure. Elbit lobbied heavily pre-proscription, citing multimillion losses. Police chiefs like Counter Terrorism Policing's Laurence Taylor affirm enforcement without fear or favor. Politicians across aisles defend it as proportionate to threats like RAF vandalism.
Academics and lawyers warn of precedent for groups like Just Stop Oil or animal rights activists, blurring criminal protest and terrorism lines. The government's original announcement underscored ideological neutrality.
Impacts on Free Speech and Protest Landscape
Proscription chilled expression: universities saw paint attacks (e.g., Balfour portrait at Cambridge), stock exchange plots, and bank blockades. In Northern Ireland, PA support accounted for a third of PSNI files on proscribed symbols. Over 3,000 arrests strained courts, with section 13 charges for uniforms or signs testing 'reckless support' thresholds.
Broader UK protest laws—Public Order Act 2023, National Security Act—amplify scrutiny. UN rapporteurs decry 'chilling effect' on Palestine advocacy. Yet, defiance persists: new groups like 'Yvette Cooper' emerged post-ban, targeting Elbit enablers.
Broader Implications for UK Terrorism Laws
The Terrorism Act 2000, post-9/11, proscribes 84 groups, mostly Islamist or separatist. PA marks a shift to domestic eco/rights activists. Critics argue the 'concerned in terrorism' threshold—committing acts, preparation, promotion—is too broad, capturing property damage for political ends.
High Court drew lines: criminality alone insufficient; scale/persistence key. Appeal could clarify proportionality, influencing future Home Secretaries. Reports like declassified assessments note most PA actions fell short of terrorism, urging targeted prosecutions.
Human Rights Watch warns blurring activism-terror undermines freedoms, echoing global trends in India, France.
Current Appeal Hearing and What's at Stake
As of April 28, 2026, the Court of Appeal hearing unfolds in London. Mahmood's team stresses national security; Ammori's counters with rights protections. Outcomes could:
- Uphold quashing: Immediate delisting, potential compensation, precedent against overreach.
- Dismiss: Reinstate ban, validate enforcement, signal crackdown trajectory.
- Remit back: Fresh Home Secretary decision.
Over 500 pending trials hang in balance; hunger strikers' plights intensify pressure. Public vigils outside court underscore stakes for protest rights amid Gaza scrutiny.
Photo by Dixit Dhinakaran on Unsplash
Future Outlook and Potential Reforms
Post-appeal, parliamentary review looms. Cross-party MPs call for Terrorism Act updates, narrowing proscription to existential threats. PA vows continued disruption legally if freed, targeting divestment.
For UK society, it tests balancing security and dissent. Arms trade debates intensify, with Elbit contracts under fire. Balanced views urge robust policing minus terror labels, preserving ECHR compliance.
Watch for judgment soon; it may redefine extremism boundaries for generations.