Palestine Action ban to be reviewed by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the ban imposed on the protest group Palestine Action, a development that could reshape the application of proscription legislation in the United Kingdom. The Home Office’s prohibition, which took effect in July 2025, is being contested by the organisation’s co‑founder, Huda Ammo­ri, who argues that the measure infringes on fundamental rights. Tribunal officials confirmed on Thursday that the appeal has been granted and will be fast‑tracked, with a hearing scheduled after the summer recess. The eventual judgment may carry significant consequences for how coercive powers are employed against activist networks. Earlier judicial consideration of the ban produced a split outcome. The High Court initially ruled the prohibition unlawful, but the Court of Appeal later overturned that decision. Five appeal judges unanimously concluded that the former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, had acted within her statutory authority when she outlawed Palestine Action on police advice. That appellate ruling now faces scrutiny before the nation’s highest court. The legal battle coincides with a broader crackdown on demonstrators. Authorities report that more than 2,000 individuals are potentially subject to prosecution for expressing support for the banned group during public rallies. On Thursday, 117 protesters were apprehended outside Westminster Magistrates’ Court; the Metropolitan Police stated that the majority of those arrests related to voicing allegiance to Palestine Action. Many of those detained had expected to appear in court on allegations of backing the organisation at earlier events, only to discover the cases had been entered in error. The controversy stems from a series of break‑ins targeting Elbit, an Israeli‑owned defence contractor with premises near Bristol. In those incidents, activists caused damage exceeding £1 million. Four participants in the raid were sentenced to imprisonment, with one additionally convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer struck with a sledgehammer. Huda Ammori responded to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear her appeal, stating, “We volition proceed to combat this proscription each the mode to the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn what has go 1 of the astir utmost attacks connected escaped code and the close to protestation successful modern British history.” The Home Office maintains that the ban targets organisational conduct rather than legitimate advocacy for Palestinian causes, asserting that the group’s activities have produced substantial financial harm to lawful enterprises. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have characterised Palestine Action’s actions as criminal, although they differed on whether those acts justified invocation of proscription statutes. Those statutes, approved by Parliament, permit the authorities to proscribe an entity for serious violence or serious financial damage linked to an ideology, and they grant police expanded powers to investigate and charge suspects involved in organisation and fundraising. The Home Office has been approached for comment.