Palestine Action ban undermined confidence in anti-terror laws, Supreme Court told

The Supreme Court recently heard a significant legal challenge concerning the ban on Palestine Action, highlighting a “crisis in confidence” surrounding the UK’s anti-terrorism legislation. Lawyers representing co-founder Huda Ammori argued that no comparable protest group has been subjected to such prohibition. They emphasized to the panel of five justices that this is the first occasion the court has had to determine whether banning an organisation under terrorism laws infringes on fundamental rights to freedom of speech and peaceful protest.

During the hearing, the Metropolitan Police reported the arrest of 27 demonstrators outside the Supreme Court. Lawyers for Ammori revealed that thousands of older individuals, many having a history of participation in other activist movements, have been detained for showing solidarity with Palestine Action since the ban was enacted. Data obtained from the Home Office shows over 4,000 arrests related to protests involving supporters holding signs in favor of the group. Many protesters face multiple arrests, with prosecutors having authorised around 1,200 charges thus far, though the fate of these trials remains uncertain pending the court’s ruling.

Representing Ammori, Henry Blaxland KC argued that the proscription has ironically amplified the group’s public profile, describing it as “pour[ing] fuel on to a fire of one of the most publicly-contested issues of our time.” He contended the ban was disproportionate and unnecessary. Ammori’s legal team acknowledged that Palestine Action’s activities go beyond conventional protest, involving “direct action” such as occupying or damaging businesses linked to Israel’s military. However, among 385 recorded incidents over five years, only three were considered offences under the Terrorism Act, reflecting the government’s broad definition of terrorism, which includes serious property damage. Two notable break-ins at defence companies reportedly caused millions of pounds in damage.

Raza Husain KC urged the court to look past the criminal allegations, which can be addressed by other state measures, and focus on whether labeling the organisation as terrorist was a disproportionate step. He noted that “Palestine Action was proscribed on the basis of less than one per cent of its actions” fitting the terrorism definition, highlighting that the majority of their tactics — such as graffiti, minor vandalism, occupations, and lock-ons — would not ordinarily qualify as terrorist acts. Although one Palestine Action member has been convicted and imprisoned for injuring a police officer with a sledgehammer, the group itself has never promoted such violent behaviour.

Free speech advocates have contributed to the court proceedings, asserting that the ban restricts the essential right to protest. Contrarily, a coalition of Jewish organisations submitted that Palestine Action poses a grave threat, describing it as a “sinister” group targeting their community’s interests. Adam Wagner KC, representing these Jewish communal groups, supported previous Court of Appeal findings that classified Palestine Action as a violent organisation engaged in terrorism with a broadening range of targets. He warned that its operations are “often undertaken covertly with no suggestion of restraint or proportionality,” and noted an “escalating trajectory” in the severity and scope of their activities at the time of the proscription.

Wagner further explained that Palestine Action’s focus had shifted from a defence firm with Israeli ownership, Elbit, to individuals and institutions deemed “Zionist.” This shift, he argued, effectively threatens the mainstream Jewish community in the UK because many British Jews and Jewish entities maintain connections with Israel. The hearing resumed on Thursday, with the Supreme Court’s judgment expected to be announced at a later date