London's Court of Appeal upheld the UK government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under terrorism laws on Monday, in a ruling the court itself described as a case of “major social [and] political significance” as police arrested 117 people outside the courthouse on suspicion of supporting a proscribed organisation.
Those arrested had been holding placards reading “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”
The ruling reverses a February 2026 High Court decision that had deemed the proscription unlawful. Co-founder Huda Ammori, who brought the original legal challenge, is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appeal was heard before an unusually large panel of five judges, including Chief Justice Lady Carr and Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos — the most senior lawyers in England and Wales. In a 44-page judgement, the court framed its task as weighing “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others).”
The judgment made repeated references to the “lawful business” of Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms manufacturer, which has operations in the UK and was the primary target of Palestine Action's campaigns. It made little reference to war crimes, international law, or genocide as potential legal grounds for direct action to prevent criminality.
Chief Justice Lady Carr concluded that “Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. It is not, as it claims, a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes operating transparently in the open.”
Since the proscription took effect, membership, fundraising, or expressing support for Palestine Action has been a criminal offense carrying a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Thousands of people have been arrested for showing support for PA and more than 700 have been charged under the Terrorism Act.Those cases will now proceed to trial, pending any future appeal.
Founded in 2020, PA is “a direct action movement committed to ending global complicity with Israel’s genocidal apartheid regime.” It gained prominence following Israel’s genocidal war against the Palestinian people of Gaza after Oct. 7, 2023.
The group's tactics — targeting Elbit Systems facilities across the UK — drew comparisons to previous direct action campaigns by Greenpeace, the anti-nuclear weapons movement, and Smash EDO which similarly targeted UK arms industry links to Israel. Among its most high-profile operations were an August 2024 raid on Elbit's facility in Filton, near Bristol, and a June 2025 incursion at RAF Brize Norton — both of which the group claimed caused millions of pounds in damage to military equipment it said was being used against Palestinians in Gaza.
Five people are due to stand trial in January 2027 in connection with the Brize Norton action.
In the Filton case, four individuals were convicted at a retrial this month on charges of criminal damage and, in one case, an offense of violence, receiving jail terms totaling 24 years. The process leading to those convictions has been described as “one of the most remarkable in British criminal history.”
Trial judge Justice Jeremy Johnson ordered that basic facts about the case be withheld from the jury. He held defense barrister Rajiv Menon KC in contempt of court for informing jurors of their right to decide on the basis of conscience, and denied bail to defendants who had already been held on remand for 80 weeks and gone on hunger strike in protest.
This is the first time in Britain that terrorism enhancements have been applied at sentencing without a terrorism conviction, and the first time that “criminal damage convictions” have been classified as terrorism-related. Justice Johnson passed sentence on the basis of a “terrorist connection” without informing the jury that he intended to do so. Such designation carries longer sentences, limits on early release, and lifelong consequences for those convicted.
Rights campaigners Liberty which made submissions on behalf of PA stated that “labelling forms of disruptive protest as terrorist has a chilling effect on protest and campaigning.” Amnesty International called the decision a “dangerous” move against the right to protest.
