LONDON — In a landmark judicial decision, Britain’s High Court has declared the government’s proscription of protest group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization to be unlawful. The ruling, delivered on Friday by a three-judge panel comprising Justices Victoria Sharp, Jonathan Swift, and Karen Steyn, determined that the government’s classification was disproportionate and unsupported by evidence of terrorist-level activities.
The court found that while maintaining the ban pending government appeal, the characterization of Palestine Action’s activities failed to meet the statutory threshold for terrorist designation under UK counter-terrorism legislation. The judges noted that despite some actions potentially qualifying as criminal offenses, the group’s overall conduct lacked the “level, scale and persistence” necessary to justify terrorist classification.
Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori hailed the decision as “a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people,” characterizing the original ban as “one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.”
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating her intention to challenge the judgment in the Court of Appeal. “I disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organization is disproportionate,” Mahmood asserted.
The controversial proscription last year had placed Palestine Action alongside organizations like al-Qaida and Hamas, rendering membership or support punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. Subsequent enforcement led to over 2,000 arrests primarily for displaying supportive signage.
The government’s original designation followed June protests where activists breached a Royal Air Force base, damaging aircraft in opposition to UK military support for Israel’s Gaza operations. Since its 2020 formation, Palestine Action has targeted UK facilities linked to Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems, causing significant property damage that officials claim impacts national security.
The court acknowledged that while certain individual actions might constitute criminal offenses, existing legal frameworks already provided adequate remedies without necessitating terrorist designation.