The United Kingdom government has lost its bid to block a legal challenge against its decision to classify Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under counter-terrorism laws.
In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal cleared the way for a judicial review of the proscription to be heard before a High Court judge next month.
Earlier in 2025, Palestine Action’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, secured permission to contest the home secretary’s ban, which came into effect on July 5.
The ruling makes it a criminal offence to be a member of, or show support for, the activist group.
A Home Office spokesperson said the department would “carefully consider the implications” of the ruling but stressed that “Palestine Action remain a proscribed group and those who support them will face the full force of the law.”
Since the ban began, more than 2,100 demonstrators have been arrested, with some 170 charged for allegedly showing support for the organisation, an offence that carries up to six months in jail.
Protesters have continued to display placards declaring, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
Ministers had argued that a judicial review should not proceed because the Terrorism Act provides an internal mechanism for banned groups to request “deproscription” through the Home Office, a slow, bureaucratic process that can take months.
If rejected, such cases are reviewed by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a semi-secret tribunal.
However, lawyers for Ms Ammori contended that the exceptional circumstances surrounding the ban and the scale of public backing for Palestine Action warranted an immediate High Court review. They argued that Parliament never explicitly barred such a legal route.
Delivering judgment on Friday, Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, ruled that Ms Ammori was entitled to challenge the initial decision to proscribe the group rather than waiting for the POAC process.
“An application to deproscribe, with a right of appeal to POAC, was not intended to be a means of challenging the initial decision,” she said. She added that a judicial review would be a “quicker means of challenging the order proscribing Palestine Action, than applying to deproscribe.”
“Judicial review would enable the High Court to give an authoritative judgment on whether or not it was lawful to proscribe Palestine Action,” she continued. “That judgment could then be relied on in criminal courts hearing charges against any person arrested in connection with their support of Palestine Action.”
In response, the Home Office reiterated its stance that the group’s activities amounted to a threat to national security. “Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign.
This has involved sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, as well as intimidation, alleged violence and serious injuries,” the spokesperson said. “Everyone should remember: supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing.”
Ms Ammori, however, welcomed the decision, saying the government’s attempt to sidestep judicial scrutiny had “backfired spectacularly.”
“We now head into the judicial review in November with an even stronger legal footing,” she said. “Arresting peaceful protesters and those disrupting the arms trade is a dangerous misuse of counter-terror resources.”
She also won a related application allowing her to broaden her case, giving her the opportunity to argue more extensively in November why she believes the government’s proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful.
