High Court Rules UK Ban on Palestine Action Unlawful

Lead

Senior judges at the High Court ruled on Feb. 13, 2026, that the U.K. government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization was unlawful, saying the measure was disproportionate and infringed free-speech protections. The ban, imposed in July 2025, placed the group on the same legal footing as organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. The government said it will appeal the ruling. For now, the court allowed the criminal offence of membership to remain in force while the appeal proceeds.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court declared the July 2025 proscription of Palestine Action unlawful on Feb. 13, 2026, citing disproportionate impact on rights.
• The ban had equated Palestine Action with listed terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, Atomwaffen Division and Hezbollah.
• Authorities say Palestine Action damaged facilities linked to an Israeli arms firm and broke into RAF Brize Norton in June 2025.
• Since the ban took effect, police have arrested more than 2,000 people in incidents connected to supporting or demonstrating for the group.
• The government intends to appeal the High Court decision; the membership offence was preserved pending appeal.
• Human-rights organizations and free-expression advocates had criticized the ban as the first use of proscription powers for property damage rather than threats of violence.

Background

The proscription was introduced by the U.K. government in July 2025 under powers that allow ministers to list organizations deemed terrorist for the purposes of the Terrorism Act. Traditionally, proscription has targeted groups linked to violent campaigns or credible threats against people; in this instance ministers said the legal basis rested on “serious damage to property.” Critics argued that using the list for property damage marked a legal and constitutional departure.

Palestine Action formed as a pro-Palestinian direct-action collective that targets companies and facilities tied to the Israeli defence sector. Its tactics have included vandalism of supplier premises and, most prominently, a June 2025 incident in which activists forced access to RAF Brize Norton and damaged two aircraft. The government said those actions justified proscription; supporters and civil-liberties groups said the response was an overreach that risked chilling lawful protest.

Main Event

On Feb. 13, 2026, senior High Court judges concluded that ministers had gone beyond what the law reasonably permitted by listing Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The court found the ban interfered with fundamental rights and was disproportionate given the group’s record, which the judges characterized as focused on property damage rather than violence against people.

The ruling underscored a legal distinction between conduct that endangers life and conduct that damages property, and it emphasized proportionality under human-rights protections. While the judges struck down the proscription itself, they left in place the specific offence of membership to avoid an immediate legal gap while appeals proceed.

Government spokespeople said they would seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, framing the proscription as a necessary tool to protect critical infrastructure and deter serious criminality. Human-rights organizations welcomed the decision as a vindication of free-expression and protest rights, but signalled expectations of further litigation.

Analysis & Implications

The High Court’s judgment raises immediate questions about how U.K. ministers may use proscription powers going forward. If upheld on appeal, the ruling would constrain governments from designating organizations on the basis of property damage alone, tightening the threshold for listing and reinforcing proportionality requirements in public order law.

Politically, the verdict is a setback for the Starmer administration, which positioned the measure as part of a broader public-order and national-security strategy. The decision may intensify debate in Parliament about the balance between public safety and civil liberties, and could prompt ministers to rely more on criminal law or targeted offences rather than proscription for non-violent harmful acts.

For activists and campaign groups, the ruling offers short-term relief but not a final resolution. With membership offences retained during appeal, some prosecutions and policing practices may continue, and courts at higher levels will be asked to clarify the proper legal standard. That will shape how police and prosecutors prioritize investigations into protest-related property damage.

Comparison & Data

The table highlights the short timeline between the government’s July 2025 proscription and the High Court decision in February 2026. The number of arrests—cited in media reporting and legal challenges—has been a central factual point in judicial and political scrutiny, though enforcement practices and charge outcomes vary by police force and local prosecutor decisions.

Reactions & Quotes

Authorities and activists framed the ruling in sharply different terms, with officials stressing security and campaigners celebrating a vindication of civil liberties.

“This ruling recognises that listing a group for property damage alone crossed the line of proportionality.”

Senior High Court judgment summary

“A monumental victory for our fundamental freedoms — the ban must now be lifted without delay.”

Huda Ammori, Palestine Action co-founder

“We will seek permission to appeal; we consider the proscription necessary to protect critical assets and public safety.”

U.K. government spokesperson

Unconfirmed

• Precise breakdown of the more than 2,000 arrests (charges filed, dropped, or convictions) remains unclear from public reporting.
• The extent to which police guidance changed nationwide after the proscription is still being compiled; local forces have used different approaches.
• Internal cabinet discussions and legal advice that led to the July 2025 decision have not been publicly released in full.

Bottom Line

The High Court ruling narrows the circumstances in which U.K. ministers can use proscription powers, particularly where the alleged harm is property damage rather than violence against people. The decision reaffirms judicial scrutiny over measures that constrain free expression and assembly, and it signals judges will require clear evidence of necessity and proportionality before upholding similar bans.

With the government poised to appeal, this legal battle will likely continue through higher courts and could result in clearer statutory guidance or legislative responses. For activists, police and policymakers, the ruling does not end uncertainty: it shifts the fight from immediate proscription to how the state manages protest, enforcement and public-safety claims within established human-rights frameworks.

Sources

• The New York Times (news report)
• U.K. Judiciary (official court system website)
• GOV.UK (U.K. government official site)