Fewer than 1% of Palestine Action demonstrations met definition of terror, court to hear

Fewer than 1% of Palestine Action’s direct action protests over a five-year period met the definition of terrorism, the Supreme Court is preparing to be told. The group's co-founder Huda Ammori is lodging a legal bid against the Government’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws to the UK’s highest court. Ms Ammori previously took on the then-home secretary Yvette Cooper’s 2025 decision to ban the group at the High Court, with three judges finding in February that it was unlawful.

But the decision was overturned by five Court of Appeal judges in June, which found the ban was lawful and a “justified and proportionate” interference with freedom of expression rights. The case is set to be considered by five Supreme Court justices at a two-day hearing beginning on Wednesday. Read more: Human rights lawyer, 94, among more than 300 arrested outside US embassy after supporting Palestine Action Read more: Police assessing post by wife of Andy Burnham's national security adviser over support for banned Palestine Action Raza Husain KC, who is representing Ms Ammori, said in a written appeal that only three out of 385 actions carried out by Palestine Action over a five-year period were assessed as meeting the definition of terrorism under part of the Terrorism Act.

He continued: “This was solely on the basis that they involved ‘serious damage to property’. “In other words, the Home Secretary’s advisors assessed that less than 1% of Palestine Action’s direct action protest activities over five years fell within a definition of terrorism.” Mr Husain said the ban has led to “the total destruction of a protest group which enjoyed widespread support from across civil society”. Expressing support for the group is an offence under the Terrorism Act after it was proscribed, with the court told more than 3,000 people have been arrested since the ban.

The barrister continued: “Even allowing appropriate deference to the Home Secretary’s assessment of national security interests, the impact of proscription does not come close to being justified as a proportionate interference with fundamental freedoms of expression and association.” Mr Husain later said that Palestine Action is the first of 98 proscribed organisations to be banned exclusively for causing serious damage to property “with no suggestion that it advocated serious violence against the person”.

The Home Office is opposing the appeal. In written submissions Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said the Court of Appeal had rejected Ms Ammori’s attempt to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent direct action protest group”. He said: “The principles applied by the Court of Appeal in allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal were long-standing, settled, and orthodox. “The Court of Appeal made no error of law. Their conclusions of fact were plainly justified on the evidence before them.”

Sir James said acts which involved serious damage to property could be considered terrorism and the action did not need to involve violence or an intent to endanger life. The barrister later said the information given by Ms Ammori about Palestine Action’s “structure, activities and membership” remain “notably vague and incomplete” in her written submissions to the Supreme Court. Sir James also said that the group’s ban does not prevent public support for Palestine or opposition to Israel and the Israel Defence Forces, and that there are still “vocal large-scale and frequent expressions of support for the pro-Palestinian cause” with only direct support of Palestine Action restricted.

He added that allowing people to continue to become members of and express open support for Palestine Action “would have risked presenting it as a legitimate organisation and creating a permissive environment for it”. Human rights groups Amnesty UK and Liberty said the courts have not provided any “real check” on the Government’s use of the proscription power. In written submissions on behalf of the groups, Tom Hickman KC said: “The very broad nature of the proscription gateway was intended to be offset by the ability of the courts to ensure that the power was used only where necessary and proportionate… Yet on the approach of the Government and the Court of Appeal, those protections, on which Parliament relied, provide no real check on the exercise of the power.

“It is hard to see, on that approach, how any exercise of the proscription power against an organisation which has engaged in criminal acts meeting the threshold of terrorism, in order to prevent the organisation’s members committing further criminal acts, could be found to be disproportionate.” Mr Hickman later said that the Home Office used “the sledgehammer of an anti-terrorism power to crack the nut of a direct-action protest group”.

However in written submissions on behalf of the Community Security Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council, Adam Wagner KC said the UK Jewish community is “especially vulnerable to Palestine Action’s violent activities” as activists had attacked “Jewish charities and Jewish-owned businesses”. He said lifting the proscription would “re-arm and revitalise a sinister and dangerous movement” and could serve as a “green light” for perpetrators of “violent antisemitism more broadly”.

The hearing before Lords Reed, Sales, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Stephens is due to begin on Wednesday with a decision expected at a later date.