On June 15, the Court of Appeal ruled that the British government’s ban on advocacy group Palestine Action was upheld, overturning the Supreme Court’s February ruling that the terror ban was unlawful.
On June 30, 2025, Palestine Action was designated a terrorist organization and forbidden under the Terrorism Act 2000 by former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. The Justifications The allegations made by the former Home Secretary included allegations of serious damage to property, which she said fell under Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Section 3(4) of the Act includes broad powers allowing the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to designate a group as a terrorist organization and to proscribe it if she determines that the group is engaged in acts of terrorism.
The plaintiff, Ms Ammori, challenged against the ban on the Palestine Action under the law and argued that the Home Secretary had not followed her own policy in deciding to ban the Palestine Action. She further claimed that the decision violated her rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and freedom of assembly (Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Ms. Ammori was successful in the Supreme Court. However, the decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal.
The five appeal judges justified that the Home Secretary did not breach her ban policy and that as a decision-maker she had to take into account various factors such as “protecting the public when national security is at stake”. They added: “It must balance, in the most difficult of circumstances, the rights of some people to freedom of expression and assembly against the rights of other third parties and the national security of the UK.”
Additionally, the court ruled that “Palestine Action is not an organization that engages in activities that fall within the established tradition of peaceful protest,” and found that the group had targeted international defense contractors based in the United Kingdom, which the Home Secretary said threatened national security.
Human rights activist groups such as Amnesty International, expressed their disappointment with the verdict as a “shameful chapter in our history”. The director of the UK Legal Program echoed this sentiment, stating that “treating direct protest as terrorism is fundamentally disproportionate.”
Since the ban came into effect, thousands of people have been arrested at demonstrations, including people carrying placards expressing their views on atrocities in West Asia.
Following the ban, Ms. Ammori specified, “We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on freedom of expression and the right to protest in modern British history.”
The Palestine Action ban has caused widespread concern the legal Community on how UK courts apply the rule of law. This decision shows how UK counter-terrorism laws can undermine human rights by giving the executive branch excessive powers. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act gives the Home Secretary broad powers to forcibly restrict collective freedoms.
have courts not before applied section 1(2)(b) of the 2000 Act to prohibit a non-violent group which is essentially lowers the “sufficiently serious” threshold for the government to designate a group as a terrorist organization. Palestine Action has staged protests over damage to property at the British military base at Brize Norton – a key part of the UK’s defense infrastructure. However, debates arose as to whether the property damage was “sufficiently serious“ enough to fall within the parameters of the Terrorism Act 2000. Critics have argued that there are alternative methods for holding protesters criminally liable for property Damage without which escalates to the banning of a protest group as a terrorist organization. The ban has a chilling effect, as anyone who simply holds a placard to express their opinion on the issue can now have arrested. Freedom of expression as a human right is under threat in the UK. The draconian ruling calls into question the protection of the rule of law in the UK and the ability to hold government power to account.
The effect of the ban has led to the arrest of 1,630 peaceful protesters. Relentless restrictions on civic space have triggered an ongoing legal dispute between the Interior Ministry and Ms. Ammori.
The Supreme Court will have the final say on the matter if Palestine Action is granted permission to appeal the ruling.
The opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our local correspondents and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
