Palestine Action Judicial Review
27 November 2025 - SACC
A judicial review into the Government's decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation began yesterday, 26 November 2025. The case was brought by Huda Amori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, and is being heard by a panel of three judges. The hearing will be spread over three days. It is likely to be some time before judgement is handed down.
SACC is opposed to the measures in the Terrorism Act 2000 that allow the Home Secretary to ban organisations believed to be "concerned in terrorism". We believe the ban on Palestine Action to be a particularly egregious stretch of these powers and we hope the court will find it to be unlawful. If it does so, all the charges for alleged support of Palestine Action by people peacefully protesting against the ban will be struck down.
Palestine Action has been banned in the UK since midnight, 4 July. Prior to the ban Palestine Action engaged in non-violent direct action to stop Israel's genocide and other Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Palestine Action's activities included damage to property that would be criminal if the defence of justification were not accepted. The proper place to decide if such actions are justified is before a jury, on a case by case basis. The effect of the ban is to bypass proper consideration of the circumstances of each case by designating all activities linked to Palestine Action as "terrorist". Besides criminalising forms of direct action that might otherwise have a defence in law it also criminalises any organising or promotional activity carried out on behalf of Palestine Action.
But it's worse than that. The "proscription offences" created under the Terrorism Act 2000 are so broad that members of the public giving support to Palestine Action or making "supportive" statements are potentially committing offences. This means that the ban criminalises peaceful, non-disruptive protest as well as direct action. More than 2300 people have so far been arrested in connection with alleged proscription offences - for example holding placards - since the ban came into effect. This figure utterly dwarfs the handful of charges previously brought for proscription offences over the quarter century for which such offences have existed. It highlights public concern over the UK's involvement in Israel's genocide and public outrage and disbelief at the gagging effect of the ban.
When Parliament debated the Terrorism Act 2000, and when it debated the 2019 amendment that widened the impact of proscription by prohibiting reckless statements "supportive" of proscribed organisations, it didn't contemplate opposition on this scale. That's one reason why proscription under the Terrorism Act is an inappropriate tool for dealing with Palestine Action. But there would be no need for the Government to deal with Palestine Action at all if it did what it ought in any case to do and stopped all arms supplies to Israel and all military cooperation with Israel.
The majority of the charges against people protesting the ban on Palestine Action have been under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. UK courts are unlikely to entertain the right to freedom of expression as a potential defence in these cases because of a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 (Pwr v Director of Public Prosecutions) that Section 13 is a "strict liability" offence, meaning that it is not open to interpretation. The Supreme Court nevertheless found Section 13 to be compatible with Convention rights because of the limitations on the kind of organisations that can be banned. That's another reason why the ban on Palestine Action ought not to considered lawful.
Some people arrested over protests against the ban have been charged under the potentially more serious Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. A freedom of speech defence is potentially available to these defendants, but Appeal Court decisions in two previous cases concerning expressions of support for Hamas (a banned organisation) have seriously weakened any such defence. In each of these cases, the Appeal Court upheld the trial judge's ruling that proof of the ingredients of the offence is in itself sufficient to ensure that a conviction is a proportionate interference with a defendant’s right to freedom of expression. An appeal was then made to the Supreme Court (R v BDN) on the sole question of whether Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 interferes disproportionately with the right to freedom of expression. The appeal was heard on 20 November and judgment is awaited.
SACC believes that the Terrorism Act 2000 is dangerously repressive of political life in the UK and should be repealed. Decisions to lift the ban on Palestine Action and to strike down Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 would be steps in the right direction.
Photo: Royal Courts of Justice by David Castor, public domain.
