Palestine Action – The Long Road to Freedom of Speech?

On 13 February, 2026, the High Court delivered a landmark judgment that serves as a critical check on executive power and a significant defence of political expression in the UK.

In R (on the application of Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin), the court found that the Home Secretary had unlawfully used terrorism legislation to ban Palestine Action. This case represents far more than a legal victory for one organisation—it establishes crucial principles about how government can and cannot use national security powers to silence dissent.

What is Palestine Action?

Palestine Action (PA) is described as "a national network created by a number of direct-action groups and activists from across the UK." It’s aims include the prevention and opposition of serious violations of international law by Israel against Palestinian people.

PA’s targets have been arms manufacturers within the UK, in particular Elbit Systems - Israel’s largest military manufacturer and major supplier to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). Between 2020 and 2025, the group conducted approximately 385 actions, including one incident that caused over £1 million worth of damage to parts essential to submarines.

The Proscription: When Protest Became ‘Terrorism’

On 5 July 2025, the Home Secretary’s order proscribing Palestine Action came into force. The decision was made by the Home Secretary. This decision made it illegal to:

• Be a member of Palestine Action
• Invite support for Palestine Action
• Express support for the organisation in any form

The basis of the decision was largely related to criminal damage allegedly committed by the group.

The Legal Challenge

Huda Ammori, a co-founder of the group, filed a legal challenge on June 27, 2025, arguing that the ban was an unlawful use of government power. This set the stage for a high-stakes Judicial Review that would test the limits of executive discretion in national security matters.

The Mechanism of Accountability: What is Judicial Review?

Judicial Review (‘JR’) is a critical constitutional mechanism in the UK that allows the courts to oversee the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies, including the government. Unlike an appeal, which examines whether a decision was correct, JR scrutinises whether the process of reaching that decision was lawful. It ensures that the government has not exceed its legal powers, follows its own stated policies, and respects fundamental human rights. This case demonstrates that even in matters of national security, the government is not above the law and cannot bypass its own rules to silence dissent.

You need permission to apply for Judicial Review. The court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure only serious legal challenges proceed.

The Case

The claimant, Huda Ammori, argued that PA’s direct actions, targeting the infrastructure of arms manufacturers, is a legitimate form of protest in a democratic society. While the Court relied on Cuadrilla Bowland Limited v Persons Unknown [2020] to distinguish between "non-violent civil disobedience" and "criminality," the case raises a fundamental question: At what point, according to the State, does radical protest against international law violations become terrorism?

For supporters of free speech, the government's rush to use the Terrorism Act against PA, a group focused on corporate disruption, not to violence against the public or persons, represents a dangerous use of counter-terrorism powers into the realm of political policing.

The Grounds for Judicial Review

Huda Ammori’s legal team presented several grounds for challenge. The court's findings on these grounds establish important precedents for future cases.

Ground 8 – Procedural Fairness

The Argument: Before the state destroys an organisation and criminalises its members, it should at least allow them to respond to the allegations.

The Home Secretary’s Position: National security concerns justified keeping the decision secret, citing Begum v SSHD [2024] (a controversial ruling that violated international law by leaving an individual stateless).

The Court’s Finding: While the Court ultimately found that the Home Secretary was not legally required to consult the group beforehand, citing "practical difficulties" such as the risk of groups moving funds or destroying evidence, this remains deeply concerning. It effectively allows the Home Secretary to act as "judge in her own cause" until the matter reaches court.

Ground 6 – Policy Breach

The Court caught the Home Secretary breaking her own rules. Under the precedent of Re Findlay [1985], a decision-maker must follow their own published policies “absent good reason not to do so”.

The Home Secretary’s policy requires that proscription be "proportionate." However, she admitted she factored in the "operational advantages" of the ban, essentially arguing it was justified because it would give the police more power to arrest people. The Court saw through this circular logic, ruling that you cannot justify a ban by pointing to the power the ban itself creates. This prevents the government from banning groups simply because it makes policing easier. The rejection of the operational advantage here is critical, especially against the backdrop of the overreaching policing tactics I have discussed in a previous article.

Ground 2 – Human Rights Violations

The Home Secretary attempted to use Article 17 (the ‘abuse of rights’ clause) to claim the group had no right to freedom of expression or association.

The Court categorically rejected this, establishing two critical principles:

• The government cannot simply label someone a terrorist to prevent them from using human rights protections
• Protection of dissent is central to a democratic society

The court cited Sabuncu v Turkey [2021]:

“Freedom of political debate, which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society, also includes the free expression by prohibited organisations of their views, provided that these do not contain public incitement to commit terrorist offences, or condone the use of violence.”

The Court highlighted that this ban impacts individuals who simply “would have wanted to express support for and associate with Palestine Action – whose stated aim is ‘to stop genocide and other atrocity crimes by causing disruption to corporate actors who aid, abet, facilitate and profit from those crimes’”.

The Verdict

On 13 February, the High Court delivered its judgment. The court was highly critical of Palestine Action, rejecting the idea that their activities were non-violent and stating “The claimant in her case in these proceedings has sought to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation. This is not a sustainable proposition. It rests on the premise that damage to property, regardless of extent, does not involve the use of violence.” Nevertheless, the Court ultimately found the Home Secretary’s decision to be legally flawed.

The court ruled that the Home Secretary had breached her own discretionary policy. Specifically, her department's policy stated that proscription must be ‘proportionate’. The court found that the Home Secretary wrongly considered the benefits of proscription (the new criminal offenses it would create) as a reason to proscribe, rather than looking at whether the group's actions alone necessitated such a severe measure. Because this error made the decision unlawful, the resulting interference with the claimant's rights was not ‘prescribed by law’.

Summary of Legal Principles

The judgement key points were:

• The government cannot use the consequences of a ban to justify the decision to ban.
• Human rights (Articles 10 and 11) are not lost just because the state issues a proscription order.

The judges also commented that:

• The law must distinguish between those committing specific crimes and the wider public expressing solidarity with a political movement.
• Because of the "practical difficulties" of counter-terrorism, there is no general obligation for the Home Secretary to consult a group before proscribing them.

The court noted that without the Home Secretary's significant error, it could not be certain the same decision would have been reached. Consequently, the court stated: "Subject to any further representations on relief, we propose to make an order quashing the Home Secretary's decision to proscribe Palestine Action". While this indicates the court's intent to strike down the ban, a final formal order is required to conclude the relief stage. The end is in sight, but PA is not out of the woods yet.

Crucially, Palestine Action is still proscribed. Until a further court order, you may still be charged under the Terrorism Act for indicating support of Palestine Action.

The Home Secretary has stated the following:

“As a former lord chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. Home secretaries must, however, retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the court of appeal.”

Moreover, the criminal trials of those impacted by the proscription are on-going. The judgment confirms that at the time of the ruling, criminal proceedings were active or imminent for individuals involved in the specific attacks mentioned. While the High Court case was about the proscription (the banning of the group), these other trials are about the specific criminal acts allegedly committed by members.

If You’re Considering Judicial Review

While this case proves that government decisions can be successfully challenged, Judicial Review is a high-stakes legal path that requires meticulous planning. Here’s what you need to know:

1. Promptness

Unlike other forms of litigation that allow years to bring a claim, JR is subject to incredibly strict time limits. A claim must be filed promptly, and in any event, no later than three months after the decision being challenged. However, ‘promptly’ often means much sooner; if the court believes you delayed unnecessarily, it can refuse to hear the case. In matters of protest and civil liberties, where the impact is immediate, you must seek legal advice the moment a decision is made.

2. Cost Barrier and Risk Management

Judicial Review is expensive. The process involves a two-stage battle: first, obtaining permission from a judge, and second, the substantive full hearing. Beyond your own legal fees, there is a significant costs risk and if you lose your case, you may be ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs which may be significant.

Here at Saunders, we have a Civil Legal Aid contract and extensive experience in securing Legal Aid for eligible individuals.

How Saunders Law Can Help

Challenging government decision is not a standard legal undertaking. It requires a sophisticated understanding of deconstructing national security arguments and how to utilise the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights as both a shield and a sword.

Our firm offers specialist expertise in Human Rights Law, Judicial Review strategies and challenging public bodies who overstep their powers. We understand that these cases aren't just about legal principles—they're about fundamental freedoms.

Get in Touch Now

Our firm is dedicated to defending the right to dissent and protecting the vulnerable from the misuse of state power. If you believe a public body has acted unlawfully, irrationally, or in breach of your human rights, time is critical. The clock starts ticking the moment the decision is made.  

Contact our specialist Action Against Public Authorities (AAP) team today for a consultation.