The rights of those who would otherwise wish to support Palestine Action are affected
In a London courtroom, the British government is asking five senior judges to restore a terrorism ban that a lower court already struck down — a legal contest that reaches beyond one protest group to ask how a democracy draws the line between criminal disruption and political dissent. Palestine Action, founded in 2020 to obstruct the UK operations of an Israeli defence contractor, sits at the centre of this question: not a paramilitary organisation, but one whose members have broken into military bases and caused millions in property damage. The outcome will test whether counter-terrorism law can be stretched to contain movements that unsettle the state without threatening lives, and what that stretching costs in civil liberty.
- The government is fighting to revive a ban that three High Court judges already declared unlawful in February, making this five-judge appeal panel an unusually high-stakes legal assembly.
- At the heart of the tension is a group that sits in uncomfortable legal territory — neither a violent extremist organisation nor a conventional protest movement, but one whose members raided an RAF base and caused damage exceeding £50,000 on nearly thirty occasions.
- The government's barrister argued that once counter-terrorism experts classify a group as 'concerned in terrorism,' ministers must retain broad discretion to act — even if that sweeps up sympathisers who never endorsed the group's most serious tactics.
- Senior judge Sir Geoffrey Vos pressed the government on precisely that point, exposing the civil liberties fault line: a ban that criminalises association, not just action, risks punishing political belief alongside criminal conduct.
- With over 3,000 arrests tied to pro-Palestine demonstrations since July 2025 and 158 people arrested in connection with Palestine Action itself, the human cost of this legal dispute is already accumulating outside the courtroom.
- The three-day hearing will determine not just the fate of one organisation, but the boundaries of how British law can respond to disruptive protest movements for years to come.
The British government entered the Court of Appeal on Tuesday to defend a ban that a lower court had already struck down. In February, three High Court judges ruled that the home secretary had exceeded her legal authority in proscribing Palestine Action — a group founded in 2020 to disrupt the UK operations of Elbit Systems, Israel's largest defence contractor — even while acknowledging that the group promoted its cause through criminality. Now a rare five-judge panel has been assembled to decide whether that ruling should stand.
The scale of Palestine Action's activities is not in dispute. Between August 2024 and June 2025, members carried out 158 direct action events at 48 premises, causing more than £50,000 in damage on 28 of those occasions. A month before the ban was issued, members broke into RAF Brize Norton and vandalised military aircraft. Counter-terrorism chiefs had recommended the ban in March 2025, concluding it would contain the group without infringing on peaceful protest by other pro-Palestinian organisations.
The government's lead barrister, Sir James Eadie KC, argued that Parliament had deliberately granted ministers broad discretion once an organisation was found to meet the statutory definition of being 'concerned in terrorism.' The ban was lawful, he maintained, because Palestine Action's activities were serious and escalating. But Sir Geoffrey Vos, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, challenged him on the sweep of that logic — pointing out that the ban also affects people who support the group's cause without endorsing its most extreme methods. Eadie did not deny the tension; he argued it was inherent to how proscription regimes are designed to work.
Palestine Action's co-founder and her legal team have consistently framed the group's actions as civil disobedience rather than terrorism, and the High Court agreed that the home secretary had breached her own policy on when such exceptional powers apply. The group remains banned while the appeal continues. Outside the court, dozens of protesters gathered — a visible reminder that since the July 2025 ban on pro-Palestine demonstrations, more than 3,000 people have been arrested. Palestine Action's own arguments are scheduled for Wednesday, and whatever this panel decides will set the terms for how British law handles disruptive protest movements long after this case is resolved.
The government walked into the Court of Appeal on Tuesday morning to fight for a ban that a lower court had already declared unlawful. Two months earlier, in February, three High Court judges had ruled that the proscription of Palestine Action—a protest group focused on disrupting operations of Israeli defence contractor Elbit—exceeded the home secretary's legal authority, even if the group's methods were troubling. Now, with a rare five-judge panel assembled to hear the case, the government's lawyers were tasked with convincing the court that overturning the ban would cripple the government's counter-terrorism powers.
The stakes are genuinely unusual. Palestine Action is not Hamas or the IRA. It is a group founded in 2020 whose stated mission is to obstruct the UK operations of Elbit Systems, Israel's largest defence firm. Between August 2024 and June 2025, members conducted 158 direct action events at 48 different business premises. On 28 of those occasions, they caused more than £50,000 in damage. One month before the ban was issued, members broke into RAF Brize Norton and vandalised military jets as part of a Gaza war protest. One hundred fifty-eight people have been arrested in connection with these activities. Yet the High Court judges, while acknowledging that Palestine Action "promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality," concluded that these facts did not justify invoking terrorism legislation.
Sir James Eadie KC, the government's lead barrister, argued that Parliament had deliberately given ministers discretion in such matters. Once an expert finding determined that an organisation was "concerned in terrorism," he told the judges, the secretary of state had broad authority to act. Counter-terrorism chiefs had recommended the ban in March 2025, concluding it would contain the group without compromising the right to peaceful protest by other pro-Palestinian organisations. The government's position was straightforward: Palestine Action met the statutory definition. Its activities were on an escalating trajectory. The ban was lawful.
But Sir Geoffrey Vos, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, pressed the government on a harder question. Was the government not asking the court to accept something legally unusual—a ban that swept up people who might support Palestine Action's cause without endorsing its more extreme tactics? Eadie acknowledged the tension. "The rights of those who would otherwise wish to support Palestine Action are affected," he said. But that, he argued, was the entire point of the proscription regime: to prevent precisely that sort of support, even among those who might not endorse the group's most serious activities.
The legal battle has been contentious throughout. Huda Ammori, Palestine Action's co-founder, and her lawyers have consistently characterised the group as engaged in legitimate civil disobedience. The High Court's February ruling had found that the home secretary breached her own policy governing when such exceptional powers could be used. The group remains banned while the appeal proceeds, but the outcome will determine whether the government can use terrorism legislation to suppress protest movements that employ criminal methods without crossing into actual violence or conspiracy to commit violence.
Outside the courtroom, dozens of pro-Palestine protesters gathered. Some held signs opposing genocide and supporting Palestine Action. The contrast was stark: the placards that have circulated since the July 2025 ban on pro-Palestine demonstrations have led to more than 3,000 arrests. The three-day hearing continues, with Palestine Action's arguments to follow on Wednesday. What emerges from this five-judge panel will shape how the government can respond to disruptive protest movements in the years ahead.
Citações Notáveis
Palestine Action met the statutory definition of being concerned in terrorism. The secretary of state's expert advice was that Palestine Action's activities were on an escalating trajectory of seriousness.— Sir James Eadie KC, government barrister
The group promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality, but those facts do not justify the ban under terrorism legislation.— High Court judges, February 2025 ruling
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the government think it needs this ban if the group is already being arrested for individual crimes?
Because proscription is different. Once a group is banned, supporting it becomes illegal in itself—you can't fundraise for it, you can't attend meetings, you can't even publicly encourage others to join. Individual arrests for vandalism don't achieve that.
But the High Court said the ban was unlawful. Why is the government appealing?
The judges agreed Palestine Action commits crimes, but they said the home secretary didn't follow her own rules for when to use this particular power. The government is arguing those rules shouldn't constrain counter-terrorism decisions.
What's the actual legal question here?
Whether the government can ban a protest group under terrorism law when the group's activities are criminal but don't involve violence or conspiracy to commit violence. It's about where the line sits.
And if the government wins?
It means ministers get broader discretion to proscribe groups they deem a threat, even if those groups aren't planning attacks. That affects what protest looks like in practice.
What does Palestine Action actually do?
They target Elbit's UK operations—breaking into facilities, vandalising equipment, disrupting business. They see it as civil disobedience against Israeli defence contracting. The government sees it as terrorism-adjacent because of the escalation and the coordination.
Is there any middle ground here?
The real tension is this: you can arrest people for breaking windows. But can you ban the entire movement they're part of? That's what the court is wrestling with.