An intelligence assessment before Palestine Action was banned under anti-terrorism laws found that the vast majority of its activities were lawful, a court has heard.
Raza Husain KC, appearing for Huda Ammori, a co-founder of the group, said Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe the group on 5 July was “repugnant” and an “authoritarian and blatant abuse of power”.
In written submissions for Monday’s high court hearing, Husain and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said: “On ‘nature and scale’, the home secretary accepts that only three of Palestine Action’s at least 385 actions would meet the statutory definition of terrorism (… itself a dubious assessment).”
Husain said it was for the court to consider “whether that’s sufficient or whether it’s de minimis (too small to be meaningful) for a group that’s been going for five years”.
He added that the vast majority of the group’s actions were assessed by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre to be lawful.
Outside court, a spokesperson for the Home Office clarified that the JTAC’s analysis was that the majority of Palestine Action’s activity was not terrorism “but does often involve criminality”.
Challenging the ban on the grounds that it contravened freedom of expression and assembly under the European convention on human rights, Ní Ghrálaigh said the proscription had already had a significant impact. “Dozens and dozens of people have been arrested for protesting, seated and mostly silent protest,” she added.
Among the cases she highlighted were protesters near the BAE Systems factory in Samlesbury, Lancashire, who were stopped by police who asked them to remove shirts reading “Free Palestine” because they might have breached the proscription order.
She said a man in Leeds was arrested for carrying a placard reproducing a graphic from Private Eye magazine, which said: “Unacceptable Palestine Action: spraying military planes. Acceptable Palestine Action: shooting Palestinians queueing for food.”
Ní Ghrálaigh said Merseyside police had bailed someone on condition they did not “mention” Palestine. Merseyside police said later that no such bail condition had been imposed, only one to refrain from activity related to Palestine Action.
Ní Ghrálaigh also highlighted the case of Laura Murton, first reported by the Guardian, who was threatened with arrest by armed police for supporting a proscribed organisation because she was holding a Palestinian flag and had signs saying “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide”.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said in response: “This is obviously an officer that doesn’t understand the law at all.”
Ní Ghrálaigh pointed out that Kent police had not apologised.
Ammori’s lawyers said the timing of the ban indicated that “national security risk was not a material factor” and was secondary to “political considerations”.
Although a review body recommended banning Palestine Action on 13 March, Husain and Ní Ghrálaigh said Foreign Office memos had advised “against moving to implement a decision to proscribe quickly”. This was because proscription might be received poorly domestically and abroad if implemented shortly after Israel’s resumption of military action in Gaza.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, accepted it was true that most of Palestine Action’s activities were not terrorism but said: “The incidents are serious and they’re escalating.”
He focused almost exclusively on process, telling the court in written submissions: “Parliament has prescribed the alternative and appropriate remedy namely an appeal to POAC (Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) as the appropriate mechanism for challenging proscription; POAC’s procedures are better suited to such a challenge; and there is no good reason for going behind that process in the present case.”
Chamberlain said he would give his decision on 30 July on whether to grant Ammori permission for a judicial review.
• This article was updated on 22 and 24 July 2025 to add a response from Merseyside police, and a comment from the Home Office regarding the JTAC’s assessment of Palestine Action.
