The UK government accused the courts of ignoring Britain’s democratic structures by blocking its attempt to designate the pro-Palestine, direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
In an appeal lodged at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, the Home Office argued that the initial judgment, which found the proscription unlawful, was legally flawed and undermined the government’s ability to respond to “escalating” activity.
The case centres on a judgment handed down by the High Court in February 2026, which ruled in favour of Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, who challenged the government’s move to ban the group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The High Court ruled that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action breached the Home Office’s own policy and disproportionately interfered with fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
But in its appeal, James Eady, representing the government, insisted that Palestine Action met the legal threshold of being “concerned in terrorism”, pointing to acts of property damage and other incidents that allegedly qualified as terrorism under UK law.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
“She is democratically accountable – and as we know, that democratic stamp on her decision-making has included the affirmative resolution in the process,” Eady said, referring to then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision and its approval by parliament.
Eady added that the “approach of the divisional court has paid insufficient to that framework”, criticising the judgement of not giving enough weight to the statutory and democratic structures underpinning proscription powers.
Heart of the case
At the heart of the case is a contentious question: where should the line be drawn between militant protest and terrorism?
The High Court previously rejected the portrayal of Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation, citing evidence of criminal damage and confrontations during actions.
However, judges also concluded that banning the group would have a disproportionate impact on civil liberties, particularly the rights of individuals expressing support for Palestine.
Eady acknowledged the complexity of the case compared with more clear-cut examples of proscription.
“It’s not Hamas or the IRA where there is a unique overlap, so it is a more difficult case from that perspective,” he said, suggesting that individuals may support aspects of Palestine Action’s cause without endorsing all of its actions.
“They may not support [the] more extreme wing of Palestine Action,” he added.
During the lunch break, activists in support of Palestine Action hand-delivered a letter defying the ban, with 1,700 signatures (including Sally Rooney, Brian Eno, Greta Thunberg, and others) to the Court of Appeal.
Lady Chief of Justice Sue Carr confirmed after lunch that the judges had received the letter, with Carr reading it out in open court, and the signatories stating: “We oppose genocide. We support Palestine Action”.
Following submissions by Eady, lawyers representing Ammori responded to the government’s arguments and emphasised that Palestine Action is “not a violent organisation” that advocates violence, insisting that incidents involving violence were “outliers” rather than evidence of a broader strategy.
Raza Husain KC, representing Ammori, used his response to criticise the Terrorism Act 2000, which he described as “on the face of it very wide” and has previously been described by senior judges as “very far reaching indeed”.
“The aim of terrorism is to take lives and hurt people,” said Husain.
‘That’s Rosa Parks’
“That is the opposite of what Palestine Action are about.”
The court also heard that the effects of proscription have extended far beyond the organisation’s reach.
Husain told the court that a “mass campaign of civil disobedience” which followed the ban, led to more than 2,000 arrests by October 2025 of people holding a sign that said, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”.
Those detained, the court was told, included elderly protesters, a former government adviser, a retired British army officer and an 81-year-old former magistrate.
Many of the cases involved individuals accused only of displaying signs or symbols allegedly supportive of the group.
Palestine Action defendant says guard ‘assaulted me multiple times’ during Elbit raid
Read More »
One of the judges questioned whether the group could be compared to protest movements that act openly, accept arrest, and “take the consequences”, citing previous case law.
Husain responded that the answer was “yes and no”.
Some actions, Husein said, align with a narrow, classical understanding of civil disobedience – “that’s Rosa Parks” – involving public, peaceful acts carried out in the public interest.
But other activities fall within a broader category of direct action, including criminal damage, which has historically been addressed through ordinary criminal law rather than counterterrorism measures.
Lawyers argued that treating a small proportion of activity as terrorism was “the antithesis of restraint”, warning that the approach risks collapsing long-standing distinctions between protest and terrorism.
They pointed to past protest movements, including anti-war direct action, to argue that Palestine Action is being treated in a way that breaks with legal and political tradition.
The Court of Appeal will continue to hear arguments on Wednesday and Thursday, when proceedings will enter closed court.