UK Supreme Court Reviews Palestine Action Terrorism Ban

A legal challenge to the British government's ban on Palestine Action opened at the Supreme Court in London on November 4, 2026, with co-founder Huda Ammori arguing that the designation unlawfully restricts civil liberties. The two-day hearing is examining whether authorities acted proportionately when they classified the direct-action organization as a terrorist group.

The appeal follows the government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action in July 2025 under then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The designation places the organization on the same legal list as al-Qaeda and ISIL, exposing people convicted of membership or support to prison sentences of up to 14 years.

According to the Press Association, police arrested at least 25 demonstrators outside the court on Wednesday. Participants included musicians, academics, politicians and other supporters of Palestinian causes who opposed the organization's proscription.

The demonstrations included placards echoing a statement previously published by journalist and author Sarah Helm, who is married to national security adviser Jonathan Powell. One sign displayed by a protester read:

"God help us Jews who support Palestine and Palestine Action"

Other demonstrators replaced the word referring to authors in Helm's original statement with descriptions including professors, Holocaust survivors, ordinary people and members of other professions. The final person detained carried a sign referencing people who support Palestine Action but are not married to the national security adviser.

Sir Jonathon Porritt, a former director of Friends of the Earth who advised the Prince of Wales for more than 30 years, was among those arrested, according to The Guardian.

Ammori's legal challenge centers on the effect of the ban on political expression and peaceful demonstrations. Her legal team argues that the organization never advocated violence against individuals and that its activities must be assessed in the context of other historical protest movements.

Representing Ammori, Raza Husain KC told the five Supreme Court justices:

"Palestine Action never advocated for violence against the person and the home secretary has never advocated – and could not advocate – to the contrary. The uncontroverted evidence shows moreover that [the] suffragettes, anti-war groups, environmental groups, animal rights protesters all used tactics similar to or more extreme than Palestine Action yet they were not regarded as terrorists or proscribed."

Husain argued that the suffragettes had engaged in activities including arson and bombing attacks but were subsequently recognized as an important historical political movement. He also challenged the Court of Appeal's assessment that Palestine Action's methods had little in common with earlier protest movements.

The defense further maintains that the prohibition has affected the wider Palestinian solidarity movement, including journalists, academics and artists who may have no organizational connection to Palestine Action.

In a separate statement following the first day of proceedings, Ammori described the evidence submitted by United Nations experts, Amnesty International, Liberty and a former MI6 director as overwhelming.

She characterized the government's decision as a:

"dangerous and disproportionate proscription"

Ammori argued that the designation had criminalized legitimate political demonstrations under terrorism legislation for the first time in British history. She also criticized the government's legal arguments and maintained that the organization had not promoted violence against individuals.

Amnesty International's UK Law and Human Rights Director, Tom Southerden, also criticized the arrests. He said the incident illustrated problems with the government's use of terrorism legislation and raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement.

Southerden said:

"Today was another demonstration of the chaos wrought by the Government's grave misuse of terrorism powers to proscribe Palestine Action,"

He pointed to the detention of demonstrators displaying messages similar to those previously published by Sarah Helm, who had not faced prosecution. Amnesty International has joined other civil liberties organizations in calling for the government to reverse the prohibition.

The government defended its position through written submissions presented by Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Secretary. He argued that the Court of Appeal had reached a lawful and proportionate decision.

Eadie cited the convictions of four individuals, including one for grievous bodily harm, and a judicial finding of a terrorist connection involving an attack on an Elbit Systems factory in Filton, near Bristol. He also referred to sanctions imposed by the United States against Palestine Action.

The government's position is that the designation does not prohibit broader political support for Palestinians or criticism of Israeli government policies and military operations.

Eadie told the court:

"As a matter of law, the proscription of PA [Palestine Action] does not prevent public expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or opposition to Israel and to the Israel Defense Forces, or demonstrations targeted at Elbit,"

The appeal has attracted international attention amid continuing scrutiny of Britain's approach to pro-Palestinian activism following Israel's military campaign in Gaza. Amnesty International and Liberty are among the organizations that have challenged the restrictions on civil liberties.

The hearing is scheduled to conclude on Thursday, November 5, with the Supreme Court expected to issue its judgment at a later date.