Middle East Eye • June 19, 2026 12:10

Palestine Action ban: Court ruling risks ‘slide into authoritarianism’, warn rights advocates

Political Leaning Analysis

Left Center Right

Score: -0.28 • Center / Neutral

Submitted by
Katherine Hearst
on
Fri, 06/19/2026 - 09:56

Lawyers and campaigners say the Court of Appeal's deference to the home secretary on national security grounds sets a dangerous precedent for judicial oversight of executive power

Police detain a protester opposing the proscription Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, following a Court of Appeal ruling, outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 15 June 2026 (Corey Rudy/Reuters)
Off
Campaigners and lawyers have warned that the Court of Appeal's ruling finding the ban on Palestine Action to be lawful has further blurred the lines of an already broad definition of terrorism, and that is has “dangerous” implications for the right to protest.

On Monday, a five-strong panel of judges rejected a high court’s ruling quashing the ban.

In a ruling in February, the High Court found the ban to be unlawful on three grounds:

Firstly that then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had breached her own policy in deciding to proscribe.

Secondly that the proscription risked a chilling effect on individuals' rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

And finally, it held that the ban was “disproportionate”, as only three out of hundreds of actions orchestrated by the group met the threshold for terrorism, and that criminal law was adequate for prosecution.

The Court of Appeal rejected the finding that Cooper had breached proscription policy - namely that she had accounted for factors external to the policy, including the effect of the ban in disrupting the group’s activities.

The court held that the policy was not intended to constrain her ability to do so, and that she should be afforded “appropriate latitude”.

It concluded that Cooper had “both the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make that decision”.

In terms of proportionality, the court held that she had "struck a fair balance" between the individual's rights to speech and freedom of assembly and the interests of "national security".

But campaigners and lawyers have warned that the ruling gives “undue deference” to government ministers.

“By saying we’re going to call this terrorism you get a huge deference, and a reluctance to interfere with that assessment,” former government lawyer Tim Crosland told Middle East Eye.

“So everything is lining up to put almost unfettered power into the executive at a time when a lot of us believe that the executive is actually not acting in the interests of the public at all, but that's been captured by big oil and big guns,” he added.

‘Serious damage to property’

The Court of Appeal’s assessment rests in part on the level of property damage caused by Palestine Action.

Unlike other countries, the UK’s definition of terrorism encompasses "serious damage to property" designed to influence the government or intimidate a section of the public "for the purposes of advancing an ideological cause".

But there is no legal authority to determine “serious damage to property”.

According to the legislation, “serious” can be determined by the scale of the damage, for example in terms of cost, or by “considering whether it involves risk to life or limb”, or “relate in some way to national security”.

The government’s intelligence assessment concluded that only three out of 385 actions taken by the group could meet the threshold for serious damage.

These include an action targeting defence contractor Thales in Glasgow in 2022, another in June 2024 at Instro Precision in Kent and on an Elbit Systems UK plant in Filton, near Bristol in August 2024.

While the High Court found it would be disproportionate to ban the group on the basis of these three actions, the Court of Appeal concluded that the group’s activities should be viewed more holistically as an organisation that “overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”.

The ruling cited Cooper as saying that the damage caused by the three actions “runs into the millions of pounds”.

When sentencing the activists involved in the August 2024 raid on Elbit Systems’ Filton site, the presiding judge, Justice Johnson, relied in part on a report that formed the basis for an insurer's pay out totalling “well over £1m”. 

The court heard that the report was submitted eight days before the hearing. Defence lawyers said it was “full of hearsay and opinion”, noting that some of the costs it detailed related to damage done to parts of the factory that the defendants had not entered and that the report postdated the insurer’s payout.

But rights lawyer Michael Mansfield KC said that the serious damage finding is “not enough” to justify a terrorism designation.

“It seems to me a number of features of the definition have not been satisfied, and they were over emphasising and over hooked onto the question of serious damage, whatever value they're going to put on it, but it's obviously subjective,” he told MEE.

He rejected the idea that the group’s actions were aimed at influencing the government.

“They’re way past that, that’s the whole point,” Mansfield told MEE. “Government isn't influenced by letters, posters, marches. So they're a stage beyond where they're saying the public are fed up watching [the genocide], and therefore we're taking direct action.”

Civil rights group Liberty warned that the judgment fails to clarify what direct action targeting property would not qualify as terrorism, noting that “even the court said it was unusual to proscribe an organisation whose primary objective is to cause damage to property”.

Escalation

The court of appeal further held that the High Court’s ruling did not adequately account for an “escalation” in Palestine Action’s activities prior to the decision to proscribe in June last year.

During the three-day judicial review in November, the court heard that Cooper had paused the proscription process in May last year and requested more information from the Counter Terrorism Policing regarding what actions had occurred since the Filton raid.

Police tussle with an activist during a protest against the proscription of Palestine Action, 1 July 2025 (AFP)

This was provided in a submission in June last year, which reported that in that period, the group had conducted 158 “direct action events”, 28 of which caused “significant damage to property”. The written ruling defined this as damage that “incurred repair costs of £50,000 or events that had required significant police presence”.

The ruling said that an assessment by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre appended to the submission noted the actions involved “lock-ons, occupations, blockades and vandalism (most often damaging windows and spray paint)”.

The court also cited the raid on Brize Norton air base as indicative of this escalation, dismissing the fact that it took place on the same day as the proscription decision was announced, and that “there was much discussion in argument about whether that incident is or is not properly to be regarded as a terrorist one”.

'National security'

The court highlighted that the Brize Norton action, while it happened before the decision was taken to ban the group and was not deemed “terrorist”, posed a “threat to national security”.

This was cited as a key factor in the decision to quash the high court ruling, which concluded that national security concerns meant the home secretary was entitled to “a wide margin of appreciation” in her decision making.

“I find that utterly extraordinary,” Mansfield said, “One has to give deference to politicians because they’re elected.

“But we’re actually in a state at the moment in which I think the public would not wish to defer to politicians in this way. Because politicians across the board have lost the trust and the faith of the electorate.”

'But we’re actually in a state at the moment in which I think the public would not wish to defer to politicians in this way'

- Michael Mansfield KC

He added that ministers have “a very different objective”. “This is about the fact that there is a close connection with the Israeli arms business,” he said.

“I don’t trust ministers to be telling me the absolute truth.”

“What the Court of Appeal said on Monday is that the court should give a substantial amount of deference to the home secretary on issues of national security,” Dr Clive Dolphin, a spokesperson for the campaign group Defend our Juries told MEE.

“This massively disadvantages ordinary citizens,” he said. “If the court is saying we’re going to substantially take the government's point of view, the whole point of having a judicial review slips away from us. They are saying they are prepared to be mediums of the government.

“The slide into authoritarianism is not a step, it’s not that somebody takes over on day one.

“This is a really, really dangerous ruling.” 

Palestine Action

London
News

Post Date Override
0

Update Date
Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19

Update Date Override
0

Palestine Action ban: Court ruling risks ‘slide into authoritarianism’, warn rights advocates Submitted by Katherine Hearst on Fri, 06/19/2026 - 09:56 Lawyers and campaigners say the Court of Appeal's deference to the home secretary on national security grounds sets a dangerous precedent for judicial oversight of executive power Police detain a protester opposing the proscription Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, following a Court of Appeal ruling, outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 15 June 2026 (Corey Rudy/Reuters) Off Campaigners and lawyers have warned that the Court of Appeal's ruling finding the ban on Palestine Action to be lawful has further blurred the lines of an already broad definition of terrorism, and that is has “dangerous” implications for the right to protest. On Monday, a five-strong panel of judges rejected a high court’s ruling quashing the ban. In a ruling in February, the High Court found the ban to be unlawful on three grounds: Firstly that then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had breached her own policy in deciding to proscribe. Secondly that the proscription risked a chilling effect on individuals' rights to freedom of speech and assembly. And finally, it held that the ban was “disproportionate”, as only three out of hundreds of actions orchestrated by the group met the threshold for terrorism, and that criminal law was adequate for prosecution. The Court of Appeal rejected the finding that Cooper had breached proscription policy - namely that she had accounted for factors external to the policy, including the effect of the ban in disrupting the group’s activities. The court held that the policy was not intended to constrain her ability to do so, and that she should be afforded “appropriate latitude”. It concluded that Cooper had “both the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make that decision”. In terms of proportionality, the court held that she had "struck a fair balance" between the individual's rights to speech and freedom of assembly and the interests of "national security". But campaigners and lawyers have warned that the ruling gives “undue deference” to government ministers. “By saying we’re going to call this terrorism you get a huge deference, and a reluctance to interfere with that assessment,” former government lawyer Tim Crosland told Middle East Eye. “So everything is lining up to put almost unfettered power into the executive at a time when a lot of us believe that the executive is actually not acting in the interests of the public at all, but that's been captured by big oil and big guns,” he added. ‘Serious damage to property’ The Court of Appeal’s assessment rests in part on the level of property damage caused by Palestine Action. Unlike other countries, the UK’s definition of terrorism encompasses "serious damage to property" designed to influence the government or intimidate a section of the public "for the purposes of advancing an ideological cause". But there is no legal authority to determine “serious damage to property”. According to the legislation, “serious” can be determined by the scale of the damage, for example in terms of cost, or by “considering whether it involves risk to life or limb”, or “relate in some way to national security”. The government’s intelligence assessment concluded that only three out of 385 actions taken by the group could meet the threshold for serious damage. These include an action targeting defence contractor Thales in Glasgow in 2022, another in June 2024 at Instro Precision in Kent and on an Elbit Systems UK plant in Filton, near Bristol in August 2024. While the High Court found it would be disproportionate to ban the group on the basis of these three actions, the Court of Appeal concluded that the group’s activities should be viewed more holistically as an organisation that “overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”. The ruling cited Cooper as saying that the damage caused by the three actions “runs into the millions of pounds”. When sentencing the activists involved in the August 2024 raid on Elbit Systems’ Filton site, the presiding judge, Justice Johnson, relied in part on a report that formed the basis for an insurer's pay out totalling “well over £1m”.  The court heard that the report was submitted eight days before the hearing. Defence lawyers said it was “full of hearsay and opinion”, noting that some of the costs it detailed related to damage done to parts of the factory that the defendants had not entered and that the report postdated the insurer’s payout. But rights lawyer Michael Mansfield KC said that the serious damage finding is “not enough” to justify a terrorism designation. “It seems to me a number of features of the definition have not been satisfied, and they were over emphasising and over hooked onto the question of serious damage, whatever value they're going to put on it, but it's obviously subjective,” he told MEE. He rejected the idea that the group’s actions were aimed at influencing the government. “They’re way past that, that’s the whole point,” Mansfield told MEE. “Government isn't influenced by letters, posters, marches. So they're a stage beyond where they're saying the public are fed up watching [the genocide], and therefore we're taking direct action.” Civil rights group Liberty warned that the judgment fails to clarify what direct action targeting property would not qualify as terrorism, noting that “even the court said it was unusual to proscribe an organisation whose primary objective is to cause damage to property”. Escalation The court of appeal further held that the High Court’s ruling did not adequately account for an “escalation” in Palestine Action’s activities prior to the decision to proscribe in June last year. During the three-day judicial review in November, the court heard that Cooper had paused the proscription process in May last year and requested more information from the Counter Terrorism Policing regarding what actions had occurred since the Filton raid. Police tussle with an activist during a protest against the proscription of Palestine Action, 1 July 2025 (AFP) This was provided in a submission in June last year, which reported that in that period, the group had conducted 158 “direct action events”, 28 of which caused “significant damage to property”. The written ruling defined this as damage that “incurred repair costs of £50,000 or events that had required significant police presence”. The ruling said that an assessment by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre appended to the submission noted the actions involved “lock-ons, occupations, blockades and vandalism (most often damaging windows and spray paint)”. The court also cited the raid on Brize Norton air base as indicative of this escalation, dismissing the fact that it took place on the same day as the proscription decision was announced, and that “there was much discussion in argument about whether that incident is or is not properly to be regarded as a terrorist one”. 'National security' The court highlighted that the Brize Norton action, while it happened before the decision was taken to ban the group and was not deemed “terrorist”, posed a “threat to national security”. This was cited as a key factor in the decision to quash the high court ruling, which concluded that national security concerns meant the home secretary was entitled to “a wide margin of appreciation” in her decision making. “I find that utterly extraordinary,” Mansfield said, “One has to give deference to politicians because they’re elected. “But we’re actually in a state at the moment in which I think the public would not wish to defer to politicians in this way. Because politicians across the board have lost the trust and the faith of the electorate.” 'But we’re actually in a state at the moment in which I think the public would not wish to defer to politicians in this way' - Michael Mansfield KC He added that ministers have “a very different objective”. “This is about the fact that there is a close connection with the Israeli arms business,” he said. “I don’t trust ministers to be telling me the absolute truth.” “What the Court of Appeal said on Monday is that the court should give a substantial amount of deference to the home secretary on issues of national security,” Dr Clive Dolphin, a spokesperson for the campaign group Defend our Juries told MEE. “This massively disadvantages ordinary citizens,” he said. “If the court is saying we’re going to substantially take the government's point of view, the whole point of having a judicial review slips away from us. They are saying they are prepared to be mediums of the government. “The slide into authoritarianism is not a step, it’s not that somebody takes over on day one. “This is a really, really dangerous ruling.”  Palestine Action London News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0

Story Timeline

Fri 12:10 - Middle East Eye

Palestine Action ban: Court ruling risks ‘slide into authoritarianism’, warn rights advocates