High Court Deems Palestine Action Terror Ban Unlawful in Landmark Ruling

2026-02-13 global

London, Friday, 13 February 2026.
Despite ruling the terror designation unlawful and “disproportionate,” the ban remains active pending appeal—leaving over 2,700 previous arrests in legal limbo as the government challenges the verdict.

A Precedent-Setting Judgment

On 12 February 2026, the High Court delivered a significant judgment ruling that the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization was unlawful [1][2]. This decision represents the first successful legal challenge to a proscription order under the Terrorism Act 2000 [1]. However, the ban remains in effect for the immediate future as the government pursues an appeal, maintaining the group’s categorization alongside entities such as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda [1][4].

A Question of Proportionality

The court’s decision hinged on the “proportionality test,” which former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper failed to correctly apply when instituting the ban in July 2025 [2][6]. Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, acknowledged that while Palestine Action “promotes its political cause through criminality,” the proscription was a “disproportionate” measure given the scale of the group’s activities [1]. The Judiciary noted that the ban resulted in significant interference with the rights to freedom of speech and assembly, violating the Human Rights Act 1998 [3].

Operational Limbo and Enforcement

The ruling has created a complex interim period for law enforcement. Although the proscription was deemed unlawful, the court ordered that the ban remain in force until a further hearing scheduled for 20 February 2026 [2][3]. Consequently, the Metropolitan Police have adjusted their operational strategy; rather than making immediate arrests, officers will focus on “gathering evidence” of potential offenses related to expressing support for the group [2][4]. Laurence Taylor, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing, confirmed that enforcement would be approached “pragmatically and proportionately” during this transitional phase [5].

Political Fallout and Future Implications

The political response highlights the deep divisions surrounding this case. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood expressed disappointment, asserting her intention to “fight this judgment” in the Court of Appeal to maintain public safety [1][2]. Conversely, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori described the ruling as a “monumental victory” for fundamental freedoms, arguing the ban was originally intended to appease weapons manufacturers like Elbit Systems rather than public safety [1][6]. Ultimately, this judgment establishes a critical boundary for the application of counter-terrorism laws, signaling that even criminal protest tactics do not automatically equate to terrorism [1][3].

Sources

Defense industry Legal ruling