Three thousand arrests for holding a placard. Every case now hangs on this court.
In a London courtroom this week, five senior judges are weighing a question that democracies have long struggled to answer: where does the boundary lie between protecting public order and extinguishing the right to dissent? Palestine Action, a direct action group that targeted arms manufacturers, became the first protest movement ever banned under UK terrorism law — and in its wake, more than 3,000 people were arrested simply for declaring their support. The appeal now before the Court of Appeal will determine not only whether that ban was lawful, but what kind of society Britain chooses to be when confronted with uncomfortable political speech.
- Over 3,000 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for holding placards — a number that transforms an abstract legal dispute into a crisis of civil liberties with thousands of individual fates hanging in the balance.
- The defence argues the proscription did not merely shut down Palestine Action but deliberately dismantled it, while spreading a chilling effect across the wider pro-Palestine movement through surveillance, self-censorship, and mistaken arrests.
- The government insists the High Court overstated the human rights interference, and that parliament always intended proscription to deny banned groups the oxygen of public support — even at the cost of catching ordinary demonstrators in its net.
- A panel of five judges, led by the Lady Chief Justice, signals the constitutional gravity of the case; arguments conclude this week, but judgment has been reserved, leaving thousands of arrested individuals in legal limbo.
- At the heart of the dispute is whether the Home Secretary was obliged to consider less drastic measures before reaching for terrorism law against a protest group — and whether the arms company they targeted may itself have been implicated in serious wrongdoing.
Inside a London courtroom this week, a legal battle is unfolding over how far a democratic government may go in silencing a protest movement. Palestine Action — a direct action group that targeted arms manufacturers with paint and hammers — became the first protest organisation ever banned under UK terrorism legislation. The High Court ruled in February that the proscription was unlawful, finding it a serious interference with free speech and assembly that also violated the Home Secretary's own stated policy. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is now appealing that decision.
Her barrister, Sir James Eadie KC, argued that the High Court had overstated the human rights interference, and that parliament had deliberately designed proscription to cut groups off from public support — accepting that some individuals might be caught by the Terrorism Act without themselves committing acts of terrorism. People expressing support for a proscribed organisation, he maintained, could not simply be treated as ordinary demonstrators.
Representing Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, Raza Husain painted a darker picture. The ban had not merely suspended the group but destroyed it entirely — and the damage had radiated outward. Individuals and organisations with no connection to Palestine Action had begun self-censoring; police had been stopping and arresting pro-Palestine protesters, sometimes on a mistaken reading of the law, including people wearing keffiyahs or solidarity clothing. Since the proscription took effect, more than 3,000 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act, in many cases for holding a placard reading 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.'
Husain also argued the Home Secretary had failed to consider less drastic alternatives, and had not adequately weighed the fact that Elbit Systems UK — the arms company most frequently targeted — was itself alleged to have been involved in serious criminal conduct linked to Israel's military campaign in Gaza.
The case is being heard by five judges rather than the usual three, led by the Lady Chief Justice — a mark of the constitutional stakes involved. Arguments are expected to conclude this week, with part of the proceedings held in private. Judgment has been reserved. When it arrives, it will settle not only the legality of Britain's first-ever protest group ban, but the futures of thousands of people whose arrests have been waiting, suspended, for an answer.
Inside a London courtroom this week, a legal argument is unfolding that cuts to the heart of how far a democratic government can go in silencing a protest movement. At stake is the fate of Palestine Action — a direct action group that targeted arms manufacturers with paint and hammers — and, more immediately, the legal standing of more than 3,000 people arrested simply for holding placards in its name.
The case reaches the Court of Appeal after the High Court ruled in February that the government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful. It was a landmark finding: Palestine Action was the first protest group ever banned under UK terrorism legislation, and the High Court concluded that the proscription represented a serious interference with the rights to free speech and assembly — and that it violated the Home Secretary's own stated policy on when such bans are appropriate.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is now challenging that ruling. Her barrister, Sir James Eadie KC, told the appeal panel that the High Court had overstated its case. The interference with human rights, he argued, did not outweigh the legitimate reasons for proscribing the group. He also maintained that Mahmood had not breached her own policy, which afforded her broad discretion in counter-terrorism matters and was never meant to bind her hands in every circumstance.
On the other side of the courtroom, Raza Husain, representing Huda Ammori — one of Palestine Action's co-founders — painted a picture of a protest movement not merely shut down but deliberately destroyed. The proscription, he said, had achieved the total dismantling of a group with substantial public support, one that had been trying to draw attention to what it described as atrocity crimes being committed against Palestinians. That destruction, he argued, was not a side effect of the ban. It was the point.
Husain went further, describing a ripple effect that had spread well beyond Palestine Action's own membership. Individuals and organisations with no connection to the group had begun self-censoring, pulling back from lawful advocacy out of fear of prosecution. Police, he said, had been stopping, questioning, and arresting pro-Palestine protesters — sometimes on a mistaken understanding of what the law actually required — including people who were simply wearing keffiyahs or clothing expressing solidarity with Palestinians.
The numbers give that argument its sharpest edge. Since the proscription took effect, more than 3,000 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act. Their offence, in many cases: holding a placard reading "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action." Every one of those cases now hangs on what this court decides.
Eadie pushed back on the framing that those arrests represented the suppression of peaceful protest. People expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, he argued, should not be treated as ordinary demonstrators. Parliament, he said, had deliberately designed proscription to cut off groups from public support and visibility — to deny them, in his words, the oxygen of publicity. That individuals might be caught by the Terrorism Act without themselves committing acts that meet the legal definition of terrorism was, he said, something parliament had anticipated and accepted.
Husain countered that the Home Secretary should have weighed less drastic options before reaching for proscription, and that she had failed to account for the fact that Elbit Systems UK — the arms company most frequently targeted by Palestine Action — was itself alleged to have been involved in serious criminal conduct in connection with Israel's military campaign in Gaza.
The hearing is being overseen by a panel of five judges rather than the usual three, led by the Lady Chief Justice — a signal of how seriously the courts are treating the constitutional questions involved. Arguments are expected to conclude Thursday, when part of the proceedings will be held in private. Judgment will not come immediately; it has been reserved for a later date. When it does arrive, it will settle not only the legality of the UK's first-ever ban on a protest group, but the futures of thousands of people whose arrests have been waiting, suspended, for an answer.
Notable Quotes
The proscription has caused the total destruction of a protest group with considerable popular support, while the crimes it sought to highlight remain ongoing and extensive.— Raza Husain KC, representing Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori (paraphrased)
It remains open to people to support the Palestinian cause and to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza.— Sir James Eadie KC, representing Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What makes this case different from other terrorism proscriptions the UK has pursued?
It's the first time the government has used terrorism law to ban a group defined primarily by protest and property damage rather than violence against people. That's a significant line to cross.
The High Court already ruled the ban unlawful. Why is this appeal so consequential?
Because the High Court's ruling didn't lift the ban — it stays in place while the appeal runs. So the legal jeopardy for thousands of people continues regardless of what the lower court found.
Three thousand arrests for holding a placard. How does that happen under a terrorism statute?
The law makes it an offence to express support for a proscribed organisation. The placard said "I support Palestine Action." That was enough, at least in the eyes of the police making those arrests.
The defence talked about a culture of fear. Is that a legal argument or a political one?
It's both, and that's deliberate. Legally, it speaks to the chilling effect on rights the court has to weigh. Politically, it frames the ban as something that reaches far beyond its stated target.
What does the government say to the claim that innocent protesters are being swept up?
That parliament knew this would happen and accepted it. The logic of proscription, in the government's framing, is precisely that it makes association costly — even for people on the edges.
The defence also raised Elbit Systems' alleged conduct. Why bring that into a case about Palestine Action's ban?
Because it goes to proportionality. If the group being targeted was itself targeting companies allegedly involved in serious crimes, the calculus of what counts as a legitimate response shifts.
Five judges instead of three. What does that signal?
That the court recognises this isn't a routine appeal. The constitutional stakes — what terrorism law can do to political dissent — are large enough to warrant an unusually weighty bench.