Background The activities of Palestine Action were an immediate cause for concern for government ministers in the UK and Israel. In August 2020, one month after the group emerged, then UK foreign secretary
Dominic Raab met with
Orit Farkash-Hacohen, Israel’s former minister of strategic affairs, who "pressed Raab on direct action protests against Israeli companies in Britain, noting how “the London offices of Elbit Systems” had been attacked for the fourth time in as many weeks." In 2022, then-Home Secretary
Priti Patel met with
Martin Fausset, the CEO of Elbit UK to “discuss protests and security”. The meeting produced a series of suggested actions, which were entirely redacted when the document was made public under FOI.
Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by Palestine Action showed that Israeli embassy officials asked the
UK Attorney General's Office (AGO) to intervene in cases involving the prosecution of UK protesters. Redactions were made to the FOI documents because disclosure "would be likely to prejudice the UK's relations with Israel". In his response to the embassy officials, the director general of the AGO mentioned the
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which placed restrictions on protests, and a
recent court case which determined that protesters accused of "significant" criminal damage could not use the protection of human rights as a defence. In May 2024, the government's adviser on political violence
Lord Walney published a report that recommended proscribing a new category of "extreme protest groups", including Palestine Action, with sanctions on their ability to
fundraise and its
right to assembly. Reporting by Private Eye shows that at the time of the proscription the UK's ministry of defence had ties with Palestine Action's main target: Elbit systems was close to winning a two billion pound contract for military training.
Proscription after RAF Brize Norton break-in The British government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation from 5 July 2025, following the security breach at
RAF Brize Norton and vandalism of a plane. The proscription was criticised by civil liberties groups, UN experts, British cultural figures and hundreds of lawyers as "conflating protest with terrorism". In June 2025, the government announced its intent to proscribe the group using
anti-terrorism legislation. The government announced that security arrangements would be reviewed at the base. Following a written statement to the
UK Parliament on 23 June,
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced that a proscription order, under the
Terrorism Act 2000, would be put before Parliament, which would seek to ban Palestine Action as a terror organisation, following parliamentary approval. Controversially, Palestine Action was bundled together in a single order for proscription with two neo-Nazi groups,
Maniacs Murder Cult and
Russian Imperial Movement. MPs and Peers were therefore obliged to proscribe all three together or none of them, a move that was described as "sneaky" in the House of Lords by
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and was criticised by multiple MPs as it would increase the pressure on them to vote in favour of proscription. On 2 July 2025 the
House of Commons voted by 385 votes to 26 to approve the
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 (
SI 2025/803), and proscribe the three organisations bundled together. most of them for holding signs supporting Palestine Action. One man was arrested and then de-arrested for wearing a T-shirt that read "
Plasticine Action", which he wore to mock the ban. A declassified intelligence assessment published in September 2025 states that the majority of the group's actions would not meet the legal standard of terrorism. All three incidents which the report states constitute terrorism relate to property damage, which the report states "is typically more minor", including graffiti, petty vandalism and sit-ins. According to Alan Greene, senior counter-terrorism researcher at
Birmingham Law School, this reliance on property damage "marks a radical departure" from earlier proscriptions. On 5 October, Home Secretary
Shabana Mahmood announced plans to enable the police to impose restrictions in location and duration or ban outright "repeat protests", in response to demonstrations against the
Gaza war and the proscription of Palestine Action. The "cumulative impact" of earlier protests would be grounds "in and of itself" for the police to impose restrictions. The announcement was criticised by
Amnesty International and
Liberty. Former director of Liberty
Shami Chakrabarti warned what a future
Nigel Farage government may do with these powers, and pointed out that protests are disruptive in order to be effective.
Criticism The decision to proscribe Palestine Action has been subject to debate.
The Times opposed the proscription, regarding it as "unwise" to prosecute the group under anti-terrorism laws rather than criminal legislation. By classifying the group alongside the likes of
Hamas and
al-Qaeda, it said, the government risks promoting the perception that pro-Palestinian speech is being suppressed.
The Guardian described the proscription as "an alarmingly illiberal overreaction" which conflates civil disobedience with terrorism, and called it a "disgrace" for non-violent protesters to be facing jail for expressions of support.
The New York Times stated that the declassified intelligence report "undercuts some officials' broad claims" used to justify the proscription. The proscription was criticised by experts from the
United Nations, who said that acts intending to damage property but not to kill or injure people should not be labelled as terrorism, and noted that the move could have a "chilling effect" on political protest and "advocacy generally".
Liberty, the civil liberties organisation, expressed concern regarding the precedent and propriety of the order. and that the UK's anti-terrorism laws have given UK authorities the power to suppress free speech for years now. Further, Amnesty warned that by designating Palestine Action as a terrorist group, British authorities could next suppress
freedom of speech of anyone caught expressing support for the group. In September 2025, Defence Secretary
John Healey said he expected newly appointed Home Secretary
Shabana Mahmood to be "just as tough" as Yvette Cooper on Palestine Action. Mahmood abstained from the vote to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. In November 2025,
The Guardian reported that a member of the Home Office homeland security group, who requested anonymity, had warned that the anti-terrorism
Prevent programme risked being overwhelmed by the ban. He was particularly concerned many young people who did not understand the law could be referred into the Prevent programme. His concerns reflected those that independent Prevent reviewer
Lord David Anderson had raised in the House of Lords pre-proscription debate. The same month as
The Guardian's report, the Independent Commission on Counter-Terrorism chaired by
Declan Morgan, former
Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, recommended, among other changes, narrowing the definition of terrorism to "serious risk to life, national security, or public safety, or involving arson, explosives, or firearms". It stated that the current definition of terrorism is too broad, creating "uncertainty and overreach in its application", and that the criminalisation of support for proscribed groups "can create confusion, deter lawful civic engagement, and strain relations with communities connected to affected organisations – particularly where banned groups also pursue political objectives".
Legal challenge Palestine Action dissolved following the ban, but its supporters and former members continued to take legal action to reverse its proscription. Huda Ammori challenged the designation in the High Court on 4 July. On 30 July the High Court granted permission for a judicial review to be heard in November on two grounds (a) of a failure to consult and (b) that the proscription breaches the rights to free expression, association and assembly under the
Human Rights Act 1998, but denying Judicial Review on six other grounds. Any eventual revocation of the group's proscription was described as potentially leading to the release of numerous detained individuals. One week before the challenge was set to be heard,
Mr. Justice Chamberlain, who had granted Ammori permission to appeal against the proscription, was removed from the case without explanation and replaced by a panel of three new judges - Dame
Victoria Sharp,
Mrs Justice Steyn and
Mr Justice Swift. This alteration was implemented without any provided rationale, and several campaigners including
Defend Our Juries and the
Campaign Against Arms Trade raised concerns over the decision, noting that Justices Steyn and Swift had historically ruled in favour of government interests and that Dame Sharp's brother,
Richard Sharp, was reported to have financial interests in companies targeted by Palestine Action. A three-day hearing on the case began at the High Court on 26 November 2025, with Ammori's lawyer, Raza Husain, describing the proscription as "repugnant to the tradition of the common law" and "an unprecedented and disproportionate interference" with Articles
9,
10, and
11 of the
European Convention on Human Rights. Submissions were also made by
Ben Saul, the
United Nations special rapporteur on counter-terrorism, who stated that the majority of Palestine Action's members "do not contribute in any way to property damage by other members, let alone 'terrorism' which, if properly defined, the group has not committed". Irish writer
Sally Rooney provided the court with a witness statement claiming that the ban could result in her books being withdrawn from sale in Britain, as she had pledged support for Palestine Action and it would thus be illegal for
Faber & Faber (Rooney's British publishers) and the BBC (which had adapted two of Rooney's books for television) to pay her royalties if it was suspected she would use the money to support the group. On 2 December 2025, the final day of the hearing, the courtroom was closed to the public so that government lawyers could present confidential evidence outside of the presence of journalists. Ammori's legal team was also required to leave the courtroom, with Ammori represented by a "special advocate" (who was not permitted to inform Ammori of the nature of the evidence) in their absence. Following this evidence, the hearing concluded with final submissions from Ammori's legal team. Two of Ammori's grounds for review were found to be valid: that the ban was contrary to the Human Rights Act, and that the Home Secretary had failed to apply her own policy. In their decision, the judges described Palestine Action as "an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality" and found that "a very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action". However, they considered that the decision to proscribe the group was a disproportionate interference with its supporters' rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association. They also noted that members of the group involved in its criminal actions could still be prosecuted under other statutes. The government had spent £700,000 defending the proscription during the judicial review. On February 25 Mahmood was given leave to appeal by the High Court. At the same hearing, Ammori requested permission to cross-appeal in order to argue the grounds rejected in the original decision: the judges refused her request. The appeal is currently scheduled to be heard on 28 April 2026. In advance of the appeal's opening, an open letter defying the proscription and signed by more than 1000 people was to be delivered to the court on 28th April. The letter read simply, "We oppose genocide, we support Palestine Action", a statement which exposes the signatories to prosecution, and prominent signatories include, "
Judith Butler, musician
Brian Eno, Israeli professors
Ilan Pappé and
Avi Shlaim, author and anti-apartheid campaigner
Andrew Feinstein, and
Massive Attack frontman Robert Del Naja". == Defiance of proscription ==