The government has come under pressure to justify the detention of 532 people arrested over the weekend under the Terrorism Act. Photograph: Jaimi Joy/Reuters
Huda Ammori says No 10’s allegations go against its own intelligence assessments, as pressure grows over mass arrests
…
The number of people arrested for peaceful protests, together with the images of older people being led away and the demands placed on the criminal justice system, have led many to call into question the criminalisation of so many people.
On Monday, a Downing Street spokesperson responded by saying Palestine Action, which last month became the first direct action protest group to be banned, was “a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage”.
The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the BBC that Palestine Action “is not a non-violent organisation” and claimed that court restrictions meant people “don’t know the full nature of this organisation”.
Palestine Action co-founders Richard Barnard and Huda Ammori. Photograph: Mark Kerrison/In Pictures/Getty Images
But Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, said: “Yvette Cooper and No 10’s claim that Palestine Action is a violent organisation is false and defamatory and even disproven by the government’s own intelligence assessment of Palestine Action’s activities …
“It was revealed in court during my ongoing legal challenge to the ban that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre’s (JTAC’S) assessment acknowledges that ‘Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons’ and that the ‘majority’ of its activities ‘would not be classified as terrorism’.
“Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. Disrupting Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, by trespassing on their sites in Britain is not terrorism. It is the Israeli Defense Forces and all those who arm and enable their war crimes who are the terrorists.”
Police officers make an arrest at a “Lift The Ban” demonstration in support of the proscribed group Palestine Action in Parliament Square on August 9, 2025.
“Let us be under no illusion,” said one organizer. “The government is criminalizing the people of Britain for standing up against the biggest genocide of the 21st century, as it’s livestreamed from Gaza.”
British campaigners reported Saturday that the sheer volume of people who showed up in London’s Parliament Square to support the nonviolent advocacy group Palestine Action presented a major challenge for the Metropolitan Police, who had threatened to arrest anyone supporting the organization.
The campaign group Defend Our Juries reported that as of 4:00 pm local time, at least 200 people had been arrested for joining the protest, where more than 1,000 sat silently in the square with many displaying signs that read: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”
Others held signs reading, “Is this why you joined the police?” as officers arrested demonstrators including National Health Service workers; a blind man using a wheelchair; author Jonathon Porritt; and former Guantánamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg, who now advocates for wrongly-imprisoned people swept up in the War on Terror.
BREAKING: Moazzam Begg, a never convicted former Guantanamo prisoner and senior director of CAGE international, was just arrested under the Terrorism Act.
Alongside approximately a thousand others, he held a sign which said "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" pic.twitter.com/UNFgE4zQPi
“The fact that unprecedented numbers came out today risking arrest and possible imprisonment, shows how repulsed and ashamed people are about our government’s ongoing complicity in a livestreamed genocide, and the lengths people are prepared to go to defend this country’s ancient liberties,” said a spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, which also organized a protest last month where more than two dozen people were arrested.
The protests have been held to demand that the government reverse its June decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization after it vandalized two military airplanes. The ban on the organization means that anyone who publicly supports Palestine Action risks up to 14 years in prison.
Palestine Action was formed in 2020 to demand an end to Israeli apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza and the West Bank. It has organized nonviolent actions since Israel began bombarding Gaza and blockading nearly all humanitarian aid in October 2023—killing more than 61,000 Palestinians, injuring more than 150,000, creating the largest per capita population of child amputees in the world, and starving at least 212 people so far.
“Palestine Action and people holding cardboard signs present no danger to the public at large, whereas the people who have lobbied for this ban—the arms companies and Israel lobbies—have the blood of 60,000 Palestinians on their hands,” said Defend Our Juries.
The government’s ban, announced by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, faces a legal challenge scheduled to be heard by the U.K. High Court in November. The court granted a full judicial review to Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori.
United Nations human rights chief Volker Türk warned last month that the U.K.’s proscription of the group “is at odds with the U.K.’s obligations under international human rights law” and noted that “according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages”—not property damage.
Defend Our Juries said the mass arrest of Palestinian rights advocates is taking place as Britain continues to provide support to the Israeli military, which is moving towards a full takeover of Gaza under the orders of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“They’re being arrested for holding signs in opposition to genocide and the ban of Palestine Action,” said the group as hundreds of people were carried away from Parliament Square by Metropolitan Police. “Meanwhile, the ones enabling the mass murder of Palestinians face no consequences.”
Mass arrests under the Terrorism Act are ongoing at Parliament Square.
They're being arrested for holding signs in opposition to genocide and the ban of Palestine Action.
Meanwhile, the ones enabling the mass murder of Palestinians, face no consequences pic.twitter.com/OWecwhX85J
Support from civil society groups for Palestine Action and the organizations demanding a reversal of the ban grew this past week ahead of the protest. More than 300 Jewish Britons including film director Mike Leigh; children’s author Michael Rosen; and Geoffrey Bindman, a former legal instructor to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, calling the ban “illegitimate” in a letter to Downing Street.
“The government should stop deflecting attention from genocide by linking nonviolent protest to terrorism,” read the letter.
Begg noted Saturday that “historically, civil disobedience has been employed in this country, as well as by the American civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, to challenge unjust and oppressive laws.”
“This action is not about Palestine Action, but wider issues of how anti-terror legislation curtails basic freedoms and undermines the rule of law,” he said. “There can be no doubt that such laws have been, and continue to be abused and exploited, to suppress free speech and put in place an oppressive infrastructure that represents a danger to our civil liberties.”
“In such moments, all those who resist are acting in the public interest and are motivated by the desire to protect fundamental principles of fairness, equality, and justice,” he added. “How can it be a crime to call for an end to apartheid and genocide? The planned action on August 9 is motivated by the highest moral principles that have underpinned our society and made it the envy of the world.”
“Let us be under no illusion,” said Begg. “The government is criminalizing the people of Britain for standing up against the biggest genocide of the 21st century, as it’s livestreamed from Gaza. That is why it must be opposed.”in for standing up against the biggest genocide of the 21st century, as it’s livestreamed from Gaza. That is why it must be opposed.”
Original article by Kit Klarenberg republiched from MPN under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
On July 1, British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced that Palestine Action (PA), a crusading campaign effort, would be proscribed as a terrorist group. Describing the movement as “dangerous,” she charged that its “orchestration and enaction of aggressive and intimidatory attacks against businesses, institutions and the public” had “crossed the thresholds established in the Terrorism Act 2000.” As a result, PA is now the country’s first protest group to be formally branded a terrorist entity, placing it in the same league as al-Qaida and ISIS.
Based on Cooper’s characterization, a typical consumer of mainstream media might conclude PA posed a grave threat to Britain’s public safety and national security. However, other comments by Cooper appeared to undermine her incendiary headline charges. In justifying PA’s proscription, the Home Secretary cited recent actions conducted by the movement. These included “attacks” on factories owned by defense contractors Thales in 2022 and Instro Precision in 2024, each causing more than £1 million in damages.
As hundreds of lawyers and multiple U.N. experts argued in the week before the proscription took effect, the move set an extremely dangerous precedent not only in Britain but for Palestine solidarity efforts worldwide. The group did not engage in activities that could plausibly be categorized as “terrorism”—a highly contentious concept, popularized by Israel for political reasons—in other Western jurisdictions. Average citizens were not in Palestine Action’s crosshairs, and not once did the group’s activism harm a human being.
Instead, PA engaged in multifaceted civil disobedience, targeting firms closely tied to Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians, most prominently the Israeli-owned defense giant Elbit Systems. Entities providing services to those targets—such as companies leasing commercial space to Elbit—were also in the group’s crosshairs. These actions proved devastatingly effective, hitting Elbit’s bottom line at home and abroad. PA’s disruption also brought unwelcome mainstream attention to Elbit’s operations, spotlighting the firm in ways it clearly sought to avoid.
In proscribing Palestine Action, the British government may have been motivated, in part, by a desire to avoid awkward questions and inconvenient disclosures. In one of the group’s final actions, on June 19, several members broke into Royal Air Force base Brize Norton and defaced two military planes parked there. The site is a key hub for refueling and repairing British jets that have conducted hundreds of reconnaissance flights over Gaza since the genocide began in October 2023.
These routine surveillance flights are just one component of London’s active involvement in the genocide, which authorities systematically seek to conceal from public view. Another is the presence of the SAS conducting “counterterrorism” operations in Gaza, which has been covered up via direct state decree. However, the origins of Palestine Action’s proscription stretch back much further. The story behind the ban is a sordid and largely hidden one marked by long-running, opaque collusion between British and Israeli authorities and the global arms industry.
The Legal and Political Fallout
As a result of PA’s proscription, it is now a criminal offense to be a member of, or to express “support” for, the group, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. However, an Actionist who wishes to remain anonymous predicts many will deliberately breach the proscription order, knowing they’ll face legal consequences, to increase pressure on authorities. Already, dozens of British citizens — including an 83-year-old priest — have been arrested for peacefully displaying signs declaring, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”
“Things are going to happen, without doubt. The group may be proscribed, but you can’t proscribe ideas, whether that’s opposition to the Holocaust in Gaza, sympathy with Israel’s innocent victims, or a desire to disrupt the network of genocide in Britain to which Elbit and its subsidiaries and suppliers are so central,” the Actionist tells MintPress News. “Still, the chilling effect on Palestine solidarity is obvious, and no doubt deliberate.”
The mass arrest of peaceful demonstrators for simply expressing sympathy for Palestine Action highlights a deeply troubling aspect of British “counterterror” legislation. The term “support” isn’t even clearly defined, and according to legal precedents, can extend far beyond practical or tangible assistance, to “intellectual” support, including “agreement with and approval” or “speaking in favor” of a proscribed group. In December 2024, UN experts expressed immense disquiet over this “vague and overbroad” interpretation, warning that it could “unjustifiably criminalize legitimate expression.”
“The proscription of Palestine Action is unprecedented. It’s the first time Britain has banned as ‘terrorist’ a protest group which has never used guns or bombs,” Asa Winstanley of Electronic Intifada tells MintPress News. “It seems like a massive overreach, and therefore it’s not surprising there’s been lots of civil disobedience in response.”
Surprisingly, even The Times, typically a reliable megaphone for Britain’s intelligence, military and security apparatus, published an editorial on July 7 intensely critical of “the heavy-handed branding of Palestine Action as terrorists,” dubbing the proscription “absurd.” While describing the group as “a malign force” and “antisocial menace,” the outlet argued that activists’ damage to commercial and private property could be “prosecuted into submission” under existing criminal law and the use of “lighter-touch measures” given the level of threat posed by Palestine Action.
Notably absent from The Times editorial was any consideration of the fact that criminal proceedings against Palestine Action frequently ended in failure. In several cases, Actionists who caused mass disruption or damage to Elbit sites walked free even on relatively minor charges, because the company declined to provide police or prosecutors with witnesses or other evidence.
Elbit is extremely wary of advertising the central role its arsenal plays in the killing of Palestinians. The company’s marketing brochures typically omit mention of its Israeli ownership, instead emphasizing the supposed economic and social benefits its operations deliver to British communities. A January 2023 puff piece on UAV Systems, an Elbit subsidiary repeatedly targeted by Palestine Action, even referred to the company as a “little company making repurposed Norton motorbike engines.”
In cases where Elbit did provide evidence, Actionists used the opportunity to turn the tables and place the company and the Israeli state on trial. In November 2022, five of the group’s activists who vandalized Elbit’s London HQ were acquitted. In defending their actions, several of the accused testified to witnessing first-hand atrocities committed by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza and the West Bank. While Elbit argued Palestine Action’s buckets of red paint were “improvised weapons,” the jury was not persuaded.
Palestine Action members target Allianz offices in London, demanding it stop insuring Israeli arms maker, Elbit Systems. Joao Daniel Pereira | AP
Judicial Battles and Public Defiance
Fast forward to today, and the anonymous Actionist is under no illusions that the British legal system alone will be enough to reverse Palestine Action’s proscription. “It has to be fought amongst the public, on the streets and in the courts,” they tell MintPress News. The group has applied for a judicial review in an effort to overturn its ban. This follows an application for interim relief to delay the proscription, which was denied after Yvette Cooper’s announcement.
Despite submitting an extensive witness statement outlining the serious implications that Actionists—and ordinary British citizens—could face if the ban took immediate effect, a panel of three judges took less than 90 minutes to reject the request. The justices acknowledged that there would be “serious consequences” from the government’s ban, including the risk that individuals could “unwittingly commit” criminal offenses and that those associated with the group might face “social stigma and other more serious consequences at university or at work.”
Palestine Action had warned the ban would create confusion and chaos. Police responses to pro-PA protests across Britain have varied wildly. Some resulted in no arrests, while in Wales, protesters were not only arrested under terror legislation but also had their homes raided. Videos of interactions between Palestine solidarity protesters and police suggest officers themselves are unsure about what is now lawful. In Scotland, four people were arrested for wearing T-shirts that didn’t even mention the group.
British Police Officers Say Holding A "Free Gaza" Poster Is A Terrorism Offence
Advocating against genocide in the UK is now being considered support for Palestine Action, just proscribed a terrorist group. A real time consequence of the ban.
Speaking to MintPress News, the anonymous Actionist expressed frustration over the court’s decision. “A UN Special Rapporteur supported us, warning the proscription breached international standards, but apparently British judges know better. It just shows how corrupt the entire system is. Every part of it is rotten,” they lament. “The government, almost unanimously supported by parliament, rammed through the conscription without warning or any public debate whatsoever, after falsely briefing the media we might be funded by Iran. Who will they target like this next?”
As Declassified UK has documented, nearly every major British outlet ran with the Home Office’s Iran narrative, without offering PA a rebuttal. In a particularly revealing twist, the pro-Israel lobby group We Believe In Israel—which does not disclose its funding sources—openly took credit for the government’s decision. In an X post, the organization called the proscription its “victory,” claiming it was the direct result of months of “sustained research, strategic advocacy, and evidence-based reporting” contained in a report it had published earlier in the year.
A banner reading “PROTESTING THIS ISN’T TERRORISM” is taken down by London police. Lab Mo | AP Images
Collusion and Israeli Influence
Again, the anonymous Actionist is unsurprised that British policy—if not legislation—is effectively being written by Israeli lobby groups. Yvette Cooper, Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Keir Starmer were all named as supporters of Labour Friends of Israel, before the list was scrubbed from the internet ahead of the 2024 general election. LFI, which praised the proscription, maintains a close relationship with Tel Aviv’s London embassy, which is widely believed to be infested with Mossad agents—a connection the group works to obscure.
In recent months, PA and independent journalists have uncovered compelling evidence that the Home Office has been in secret contact with Elbit representatives and Israel’s London embassy almost since the group’s founding in 2020. The full scope of this collusion is still unknown and may never come to light. However, documents released under Freedom of Information laws raise serious concerns about whether this concealed relationship influenced both the prosecution of Actionists and the decision to proscribe the group.
For example, in March 2022, then-Home Secretary Priti Patel met privately with Elbit UK CEO Martin Fausset to reassure the firm—and, by extension, its Israeli handlers—that the British government was taking “criminal protest acts against Elbit Systems UK” seriously. At the time, officials acknowledged that Palestine Action’s activities did “not meet the threshold for proscription” under British law. Before that meeting, no PA members had been successfully prosecuted. In the months that followed, legal actions against the group escalated dramatically.
Still, many Actionists continued to walk free. In December 2023, six members—including co-founders Huda Ammori and Richard Barnard—were acquitted of nine charges by a jury. The following month, internal correspondence revealed Elbit UK’s security director wrote to British officials expressing concern that “a re-trial is not a certainty” and suggesting it was “very much in the public interest” for the trial to be reheard.
Mere days later, a retrial was announced—for 2027. That would mark six years since the alleged offenses took place. One Actionist called the drawn-out process a “form of psychological warfare on defendants,” saying it prevents them from making long-term plans or securing employment. Meanwhile, other PA members are imprisoned awaiting trial, some already incarcerated for extended periods. There are disturbing signs that their detention and prosecution are being coordinated with Israeli authorities.
Among the most alarming revelations are heavily redacted emails showing that, in September 2024, the British Attorney General’s Office shared contact details for the Crown Prosecution Service and counterterrorism units with the Israeli embassy. The timing raises suspicions of Israeli interference in the prosecution of PA members who, earlier that month, broke into Elbit’s Filton factory and destroyed quadcopters—weapons routinely used to maim and kill Palestinians in Gaza.
In all, 18 Actionists involved are currently remanded in prison, their pre-trial detention period running to 182 days, well in excess of standard limits for non-terror-related cases. Their contact with the outside world has also been severely restricted, in violation of international legal norms. On July 15, another five PA members were arrested and charged in connection with Filton.
If the Israeli government played any role in these prosecutions, it would represent a flagrant breach of Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, which prohibit “undue pressure or influence from any source.”
In May, British prosecutors announced they would consider “terrorism connections” in the case of 10 Actionists who targeted Instro Precision, an Elbit supplier, in June 2024. While the charges—aggravated burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder—do not qualify as terrorism under British law, prosecutors say those connections may factor into sentencing. If upheld, that designation could lead to significantly harsher penalties than standard criminal charges would normally carry.
Legal Challenges Mount
On July 21, London’s High Court heard arguments from lawyers representing Huda Ammori, seeking permission to challenge Palestine Action’s proscription. In addition to citing devastating figures related to the genocide in Gaza and Elbit’s direct involvement, the legal team also emphasized the legal uncertainty now faced by activists and journalists as a result of the ban.
In response, government lawyers argued that the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission—not a judicial review—was the appropriate forum to challenge the designation. At the hearing’s conclusion, the judge stated a full ruling would be issued on July 30.
Earlier, on June 24, Jewish News revealed that British authorities had hesitated to proscribe PA out of concern that a judicial review “could overturn” the decision. That concern reportedly contributed to initial “reticence” from the Home Office. Even if the review is authorized, it could take months for a ruling to be reached.
In the meantime, journalist and legal scholar Leila Hatoum offered a stark assessment of the situation. She told MintPress News that the British state’s targeting of the group “for standing against genocide and oppression” was “nothing short of tyranny.” She added that the ban not only threatens basic rights—particularly freedom of speech and freedom of the press—but also violates international law.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the UN in 1948, notes it is the duty of all nations and peoples to act to stop a genocide. By legally pursuing those who are seeking to prevent Israel’s ongoing apartheid, occupation and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, especially members and supporters of Palestine Action, the UK has positioned itself against the international law, and alongside the forces of darkness. The country has failed humanity.”
A Legacy of Resistance
Despite this bleak outlook—and the possibility that the group could remain proscribed regardless of any court challenge—Palestine Action’s example remains an inspiration to people across Britain and beyond. A volunteer group of ordinary citizens, spanning every age, ethnicity, faith and gender, without financial or institutional backing, posed such a threat to entrenched power that the British government, for the first time in history, resorted to a legal “nuclear option” to neutralize them.
Civil disobedience aimed at disrupting military operations has a long and established history. Since the early 1980s, the Christian pacifist Plowshares movement has carried out sabotage against U.S. military bases and nuclear installations. In 2003, five activists were prosecuted for damaging American bombers at a British base to prevent their use in the Iraq War. One of the defendants was represented by none other than Keir Starmer, who argued successfully that although their actions were technically illegal, they were justified as an effort to prevent war crimes.
Palestine Action represents the first group to maintain this legacy during an active, ongoing genocide, but ever since its launch, it has achieved major victories. In January 2022, Elbit sold off one of its component factories, and a British government prosecutor acknowledged that PA’s sustained actions against the site “forced the closure.” Two additional Elbit sites targeted by the group have since been shut down. Governments around the world, including Brazil and even Britain, have canceled lucrative contracts with the company.
Had the British state not acted so forcefully, it is likely that Palestine Action’s momentum would have continued building, possibly forcing Elbit out of the UK entirely. Yet despite the risk of arrest or prison, solidarity with Palestine and overt support for Palestine Action show no sign of fading. As Israel’s favorability plummets to historic lows across the West, there are countless individuals around the world ready to follow PA’s example, risking their liberty to stop the ongoing genocide.
After all, it is not just a moral duty. It is a legal one.
Truth Has Enemies. We Have You.
For over a decade, MintPress News has been at the forefront of exposing Israeli apartheid, occupation, and war crimes—when few dared to. We’ve been censored, smeared, and blacklisted for telling the truth. But we haven’t stopped.
Independent journalism like this isn’t just important, it’s under attack. If you believe in reporting that defends the voiceless and challenges the powerful, we need your support.
Feature photo | A protestor holds a placard during the demonstration. Hundreds of Palestine Action protestors congregated at HMP Brixton Prison to lobby for the release of all Political Prisoners on their annual New Year’s Eve “Noise Demo”. Lab Ky Mo |Sipa | AP Images
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist and MintPress News contributor exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. His work has previously appeared in The Cradle, Declassified UK, and Grayzone. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg.
MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
Original article by Kit Klarenberg republiched from MPN under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
Keir “I support Zionism without Qualification” Starmer supporting genocide.Vote Labour for Genocide.
Palestine Action ‘supporters’ wait to be arrested under the Terrorism Act. (Photo: James Manning / Alamy)
[Declassified] Exclusive: Documents seen by Declassified reveal serious concerns within the UK government and MI5 about proscribing Palestine Action.
…
Declassified has now seen documents which detail why, how, and when the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was made. They form part of the material relied upon in the group’s High Court challenge to the ban.
‘Novel and unprecedented’
The documents detail how the government’s Proscription Review Group (PRG) conceded in March 2025 that a ban on Palestine Action would be “novel and unprecedented”.
This was because “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), which is based within MI5, also concluded that “the majority of direct action by Palestine Action would not be classified as terrorism… but does often involve criminality”.
Cooper was nonetheless advised in March by PRG and JTAC that the threshold to ban the group had been met based on three out of a total of 385 incidents, involving “serious property damage” to arms factories.
…
The documents also indicate how national security concerns were not a central factor in the Home Office’s decision to proscribe. Indeed, they barely feature in the government’s open evidence.
Ammori’s lawyers argued in court that “no national security justification for the proscription” was articulated by the Home Office, such that Cooper “did not take into account any weighty national security consideration requiring immediate proscription”.
This appears to run contrary to Cooper’s statement to parliament on 23 June, in which she declared: “The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this Government will not tolerate those who put that security at risk”.
Palestine Action joke that appeared in the UK satirical publication ‘Private Eye’.
Sharing a Private Eye cartoon led to the arrest of a retired head teacher under the Terrorism Act
Full legal review set for September
High Court cites ‘recipe for chaos’ if legality of order isn’t reviewed as soon as possible
Dilemma sharpens for Met Chief ahead of mass protest on 9 August
“Recipe for chaos”
Today, 30 July, the High Court granted permission to Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, to bring a full judicial review against the order of the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, proscribing the group as a ‘terrorist organisation’.
The ruling comes as a blow to Cooper, whose lawyers argued vigorously that the application should be refused, on the basis that the Terrorism Act contains a statutory process to apply for de-proscription.
Such a process can take years, however, whereas the judicial review is now due to be heard in September.
Mr Justice Martin Chamberlain rejected the Home Secretary’s position stating that:
“[T]he proscription order is likely to give rise to a substantial interference with rights guaranteed by the common law and by Articles 10 and 11 ECHR …
If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in Magistrates Courts across England & Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. That would be a recipe for chaos. To avoid it there is a strong public interest in allowing the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible.”
He granted Huda Ammori leave to bring a full judicial review on the basis that it is arguable that:
1. The order is a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 of European Convention on Human Rights [the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly]; and that
2. The Home Secretary should have consulted PA before making it and, by failing to do so, acted in breach of natural justice and/or contrary to Article 6 ECHR [the right to a fair hearing].
Dilemma for Met Commissioner ahead of mass protest on 9 August
It sharpens the dilemma for Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, ahead of what is expected to be a mass protest of more than 500 people planned for 9 August [1A]. It would already be a huge and costly operation for the Met to arrest so many people for holding cardboard signs, people who are motivated by horror at the genocide in Gaza and a desire to uphold democratic freedoms. The prospect of the order being ruled unlawful opens up the further possibility that all those arrested and detained will later be awarded compensation payments for unlawful arrest.
As some of his colleagues have shown around the country, police have discretion as to whether to conduct arrests or not. Police in Totnes, Derry and Kendall for example have chosen to leave peaceful protestors be. On 9 August, Sir Mark will face a stark choice – to risk his own reputation with an absurd and costly operation to arrest 500 peaceful protestors for terrorism offences, or to undermine the Home Secretary’s position by applying common sense and allowing peaceful protestors to exercise their democratic rights.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, the groups organising the protests, said:
“Yvette Cooper has no-one to blame for this crisis but herself. She was warned by her advisers that the ban would be “novel and unprecedented”, which is Whitehall mandarin-speak for ‘mad’.
If it wasn’t the police or the intelligence agencies pushing for the ban, who was it?
One of the grounds for the High Court’s ruling today was the Home Secretary’s failure to consult appropriately. While she consulted with the Israeli government and Elbit Systems on the merits of the order (and no prizes for guessing their position) she failed to consult with those adversely affected, such as Palestine Action and civil liberties organisations.
If you only consult with those who stand to benefit from your proposal, those who are committing and supporting genocide, but not those who will be adversely affected, not those who are acting to prevent genocide, your bias is already exposed.
We are confident the High Court will soon strike down this absurd and repugnant order, made at the bidding of the perpetrators of genocide.”
Chorus of criticism, mockery and defiance
The ruling comes amid a crisis of credibility for the order, which has been lambasted by lawyers, politicians and the UN alike, and openly mocked and defied across the country, on the streets, in print and online, already resulting in over 200 arrests for Terrorism Act offences.
In the House of Lords last week, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Lord Hain asked: “How have we got to the point where peacefully holding up a placard about the carnage in Gaza is equated with terrorism by Al Qaeda on 9/11 or Islamic State on countless occasions. And shouldn’t the police be concentrating on real terrorism and real crime, not targeting peaceful protesters?” [1]
Derry City and Strabane District Council ignored legal advice to pass a motion calling for the immediate overturning of the proscription, with Councillors openly wearing “We Are All Palestine Action” shirts.[1B].
Speaking to Al Jazeera, the former chief political commentator of The Daily Telegraph, Peter Oborne, warned that Yvette Cooper’s controversial ban of Palestine Action could lead to her resignation: “If the general populace comes to the conclusion that this is a stunt by the Starmer government … this legislation won’t take, people will regard it as ridiculous … you’ll end up having thousands of people coming out in support of Palestine Action, thousands of people declared terrorists. The law will suddenly look an ass, this government will lose a great deal of political credibility and in due course the Home Secretary might have to resign.” [2]
Tayab Ali, a leading lawyer at Bindmans, said:
“I would be extraordinarily surprised if the British Courts don’t strike [the ban] down. This is such an overreach.” [3]
After Private Eye satirised the ban with a cartoon, a retired head-teacher was arrested for displaying a copy of the cartoon, despite it being available in newsagents across the UK [4]. The comedian, Rosie Holt, has mocked “The new face of terrorism. It’s old, it’s wrinkly, it’s elderly and it’s dangerous.” [5]
On Friday, the UN Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk issued a press release stating:
“[The ban] appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on rights [to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association] that is at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.” [5A]
Previously, five UN Special Rapporteurs had written to the UK Government counselling against the use of Terrorism Act powers against Palestine Action [5B]. Amnesty International has spoken out against the ban, saying:
“Government embarrassment at security breaches is no proper basis for excessive and disproportionate interferences with human rights. It is precisely this kind of unlawful government action that critics of the UK’s terrorism laws warned would come one day.” [5C]
Shortly before the proscription, more than 23 organisations, led by the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights, criticised the use of Terrorism Act powers against the Filton 18, members of Palestine Action, in a paper headed, “United Kingdom: The “Filton 18” case is a warning sign of democracy and rule of law decline” [5D], citing evidence political interference in the legal process by the Israeli government:
“Judicial independence and impartiality is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial and the protection of human rights, and a prerequisite to the rule of law …
Documents obtained on 29 April 2025 through a Freedom of Information request have revealed that the UK government has shared contact details of counter-terrorism police and prosecuting authorities with the Israeli embassy in September 2024, during the investigation into the Filton 18 action and shortly after the Attorney General’s Office met with the Israeli ambassador to the UK. The documents disclosed were almost entirely redacted. However, documents disclosed in August 2023 evidence that the Israeli authorities have previously attempted to pressure the UK government to intervene in judicial proceedings relating to UK protests.
These communications, and the lack of transparency concerning their contents and whether these relate to the proceedings against Palestine Action members, raise serious questions around the independence and impartiality of prosecuting authorities in the Filton 18 case. These concerns are strengthened by the UN experts’ opinion that the use of anti-terrorism laws against the Filton 18 lacked a credible basis and may have pursued an ulterior purpose.”
On Saturday, police in Shenstone arrested a man in a wheel-chair, for wearing a T-shirt in support of Palestine Action. [6]
Home Office insinuations against Palestine Action contradicted by their own evidence
As part of the legal process, the Home Office was required to disclose the evidence available to the Home Secretary in support of proscription. It emerged that Home Office insinuations that Palestine Action is violent and funded by Iran were directly contradicted by the assessments provided to her.
The government’s Proscription Review Group (PRG) advised in March 2025 that a ban on Palestine Action would be “novel and unprecedented”, because “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”. [7]
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) assessment noted: “PA media channels highly likely will only share footage, or encourage, instances of property damage. PA branded media will highly unlikely explicitly advocate for violence against persons”. [7]
On 23 June, the day of Cooper’s statement to parliament, the Times published a report saying “Iran could be funding Palestine Action, Home Office officials claimed”. This went on to be widely reported. Yet the JTAC assessment of Palestine Action’s sources of funding makes no mention of Iran, stating that Palestine Action “is primarily funded by donations, which can be made directly through their website or via crowdfunding. Other forms of revenue include the sale of merchandise”. [7]
Writing for Declassified, John McEvoy, the historian, film-maker and reporter, said:
“The discrepancy between the Home Office press briefings and the official intelligence reports raises the prospect that a state-linked disinformation campaign was waged against Palestine Action in order to manufacture public consent for proscription.” [7]
Yvette Cooper defied warnings from advisers to push through the ban
Strikingly, the Home Secretary was warned by her own advisers that proscription risked substantiating claims of pro-Israeli bias. A Community Impact Assessment produced by the Ministry of Housing, RICU (Research, Information and Communications Unit), and NPCC (National Police Chiefs’ Council), stated:
“Other reports documented Israeli embassy officials purportedly attempting to get the attorney general’s office to intervene in court cases. In the context of such reports, proscription could provide fertile ground for actors attempting to substantiate a pattern of bias”. [7]
The report goes on to say that a ban “could be seen as the partial realisation of Lord Walney’s efforts, which dissenting actors could argue were coloured by pro-Israel bias”. [7]
In May last year, Lord Walney, published a report calling for Palestine Action and Just Stop Oil to be banned. Successive governments falsely presented Lord Walney to the public as an ‘independent’ adviser on political violence and disruption. [8]
Lord Walney in fact has close ties to the Israeli government and is a paid lobbyist for the arms industry. [9] On 14 February this year, following a Defend Our Juries campaign to sack him, his role was removed, although the Home Office stated, his work would “continue to inform our approach”. [10]
