Palestine Action ban disproportionately impacts Palestinians in UK, court hears
Lawyers representing the co-founder of Palestine Action said the ban on the direct-action group had disproportionately impacted Palestinians in Britain campaigning against Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Speaking at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, Raza Husain KC, who is representing Huda Ammori, said the ban had created a “culture of fear” among British Palestinians and those advocating for Palestinian rights.
“The proscription of PA is impacting particularly severely on Palestinians in Britain, whose conduct and expression have been chilled and criminalised at precisely the moment when their communities in Palestine are being annihilated,” Husain said in written statements.
The lawyer quoted testimony given to the court by Dr Aimee Shalan, chair of the British Palestinian Committee, on the impact that proscription had on Palestinians in Britain.
“Shalan explained that members of the Palestinian community in Britain involved in campaigning and advocacy work routinely faced legal threats, including allegations of being terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. And that's before proscription," said Husain.
“The concern here isn't that those concerned members are in fact at risk of being prosecuted, but that the climate that proscription creates means that many, many people will have to self-censor to a greater degree than is actually required, that is, the chilling effect of course in action," Husain added.
Husain also criticised the Home Office for not giving Palestine Action prior notice of its designation as a terrorist group, as required by Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000, which mandates that a group be notified before being banned.
The vast majority of Palestine Action's protest activity was "low-level civil disobedience", such as sit-ins and lock-ons, the lawyer said, while "a smaller cohort engaged in more serious damage to property".
In 2025, two activists broke into the Royal Air Force Brize Norton base in southern England and sprayed two planes with red paint.
But criminal damage caused by activists at military facilities "has historically not been regarded as terroristic", Husain said.
"Criminal, yes, terroristic no."
Another lawyer for the group, Owen Greenhall KC, argued "there were plenty of alternative measures that could be used", including charges for criminal damage, trespassing and civil injunctions.
'Contentious question'
In response to Palestine Action’s submissions, James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, said that prior consultation of the ban was not required in this instance because Palestine Action was “a disparate group” and the court was entitled to consider “the practical difficulties of inviting prior consultation”, including “identifying who should have been given prior notice”.
Eadie also argued that “the statutory context here involved national security and public safety and protector”, and pointed to “the possibility of pre-emptive steps” if notice were given to Palestine Action.
The case centres on a judgment handed down by the High Court in February 2026, which ruled in Ammori's favour, finding that the government’s move to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful.
The High Court ruled that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action breached the Home Office’s own policy and disproportionately interfered with fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
At the heart of the case is a contentious question: where should the line be drawn between militant protest and terrorism?
The High Court previously rejected the portrayal of Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation, citing evidence of criminal damage and confrontations during actions.
However, judges also concluded that banning the group would have a disproportionate impact on civil liberties, particularly the rights of individuals expressing support for Palestine.
Earlier this week, Eadie accused the courts of ignoring Britain’s democratic structures by blocking its attempt to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
The Home Office argued that the initial judgment, which found the proscription unlawful, was legally flawed and undermined the government’s ability to respond to “escalating” activity.
“She is democratically accountable - and as we know, that democratic stamp on her decision-making has included the affirmative resolution in the process,” Eadie said, referring to then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision and its approval by parliament.
Eadie added that the “approach of the divisional court has paid insufficient to that framework”, criticising the judgment of not giving enough weight to the statutory and democratic structures underpinning proscription powers.
The court will give a judgment in the coming weeks, with a closed session on Thursday during which government lawyers will present secret evidence to judges that will not be available for scrutiny by Palestine Action’s legal team.
Instead, a special advocate hired by Palestine Action’s legal team, who has security clearance to view classified information, will instead be present and argue for the direct-action group’s case.
The special advocate, however, will not be able to share the information discussed in these closed sessions with Palestine Action’s legal team, despite working for them.
This article was sourced from Middle East Eye.
Read Full Article on Middle East Eye →