The Court of Appeal has delivered its ruling in the legal battle over the decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom. The case stems from a challenge brought by Huda Amori, one of two co-founders of the group, against the government's proscription decision. In handing down its judgment, the court set out detailed findings about the nature and conduct of the organisation.
Palestine Action was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The proscription decision was announced to Parliament on the 23rd of June 2025, and the implementing order came into effect on the 5th of July 2025 after approval by positive resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. The ban made membership of, or support for, the group a criminal offence punishable by up to four years in prison.
Amori had challenged the proscription on many grounds, and the Divisional Court had earlier decided in her favour on two of them. It held that the Home Secretary's approach to other factors that might be considered under her policy had not been consistent with that policy, and it raised concerns about the fair balance that had to be struck between the rights of individuals. The matter then went before the Court of Appeal to determine whether the government had successfully challenged that earlier ruling.
In its findings, the Court of Appeal said that three incidents had been assessed as resulting in serious damage to property amounting to terrorist action within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000, one in 2022 and two in 2024. The judges said it was not accurate to describe Palestine Action as an ordinary protest group engaged in activities falling within the well-established tradition of protest.
The court agreed that Palestine Action was an organisation engaged in causing serious damage to property using weapons, including sledgehammers, and that it presented a very real risk of injury not only to property but also to members of the public. Its principal target was Elbit Systems UK Limited, but its activities were also directed at any other company or organisation considered to enable Elbit's business in the United Kingdom, with a wide range of targets pursued without any suggestion of restraint or proportionality.
The judges also described how the group operated covertly to prevent its operations being known or its perpetrators being apprehended. Communication between members was discouraged to avoid detection, and there was advice on how to avoid being identified or arrested and how to destroy incriminating material. The court concluded that the campaign was intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business and was not engaged in the type of persuasion consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.