London, November 26, 2025 – Legal proceedings have officially begun as Huda Ammori, cofounder of Palestine Action, challenges the United Kingdom government’s decision to classify the pro-Palestinian activist group as a terrorist organization. The case is being heard at London’s Royal Courts of Justice, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over civil liberties and protest rights in the UK.

UK Government’s Proscription of Palestine Action

In July 2025, the UK Home Office proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, following a series of direct actions by activists, including a high-profile protest at an air force base in southern England. Prosecutors reported that activists caused an estimated £7 million ($9.3 million) in damages to military aircraft.

The ban makes it a criminal offense to be a member of the group or to support it, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison. Since the proscription, over 2,300 individuals have been arrested, ranging from students and teachers to pensioners, highlighting the law’s broad impact.

Huda Ammori Speaks Out

At the start of the hearing, Ammori described the government’s action as “one of the most extreme attacks on civil liberties in recent British history.” She criticized the proscription as a politically motivated move that diverts law enforcement resources from genuine security threats, describing it as an affront to democratic principles.

Public Protests and Police Response

Outside the High Court, supporters of Palestine Action staged demonstrations, holding placards and banners in solidarity. Al Jazeera reporter Sonia Gallego noted that protesters are effectively highlighting the consequences of the ban, as police moved to detain individuals simply for expressing support for the group.

Legal Arguments Against the Proscription

Lawyers representing Ammori argue that the ban is a misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. They claim the designation is disproportionate and unnecessary, a sentiment echoed by international observers.

• United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk criticized the ban as excessive.
• The Council of Europe warned that it imposes “excessive limits” on the right to protest.

The legal challenge is expected to continue over multiple sessions, with a third day to be scheduled later.

Concerns Over Judicial Impartiality

The case has drawn further controversy after Justice Martin Chamberlain, initially assigned to hear the case, was removed without explanation. Activist group Defend Our Juries cited his prior involvement in cases related to UK arms sales to Israel as evidence of potential bias.

The two replacement judges—Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jonathan Swift—have connections raising questions of impartiality. Sharp’s family ties link her to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and prominent pro-Israel lobbyists, while Swift has previously represented the Home Office in multiple legal proceedings. Campaigners argue that these associations may compromise fairness in this high-profile judicial review.

Background: Palestine Action’s Mission

Founded in 2020, Palestine Action’s stated objective is to halt global participation in Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank, which it describes as apartheid and genocidal. The group has focused primarily on direct actions against weapons factories associated with the Israeli defense company Elbit Systems.

Since the July 2025 ban, supporters have continued public demonstrations, often holding signs declaring: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”

Wider Implications

The legal battle over Palestine Action’s proscription underscores a growing tension between anti-terror laws and the protection of civil liberties in the UK. Observers warn that the government’s approach could set a precedent, potentially restricting legitimate protest and public dissent.

As the case unfolds, it will be closely monitored by human rights organizations, activists, and legal experts, both in the UK and internationally, who view it as a crucial test of the balance between security and freedom of expression.