1.1.3 – Pressure groups
1.1.4 – Right in context
On Friday 13 February, the High Court in London ruled that the UK Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was unlawful, calling into question the government’s use of the Terrorism Act, and raising debates around the right to protest in the UK.
Palestine Action was set up in July 2020, but came to the fore following Israel’s incursion into Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. The group could have been described as an outsider pressure group engaged in direct (and unlawful) action to achieve its aims of preventing the UK from exporting arms to Israel.
In July 2025, the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, took the unusual step of proscribing the group, following a break-in at RAF Brize Norton, where the group vandalised RAF aircraft. Proscribing a group means that it is classed as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000, making it a criminal offence to be a member of – or express support for – the group.
Proscribing groups under the Terrorism Act was a commonly used tool during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where splinter groups on the republican and loyalist side of the divide would often emerge. Classing ‘support’ for such an organisation as a criminal offence had the twin effects of avoiding semantics over what constituted membership (such organisations rarely keep formal records), and also acted as a deterrent to sympathetic civilians who may offer logistical or vocal support. Following 9/11, a wide array of Islamic groups were also proscribed, many of whom were not based in the UK.
The UK Government attempted to block Palestine Action from challenging their proscription, but the Court of Appeal rejected this in October 2025. When the case was heard in February 2026, the High Court ruled that the actions of Palestine Action, whilst criminal, did not reach the high bar set to make it a terrorist organisation.
Since being proscribed, there have been over 2,000 arrests and almost 700 people charged for expressing support for a proscribed organisation, something which civil liberties groups have been highly critical of. In response to the High Court’s ruling, the civil liberties group, Liberty, said,
“This case has exposed a deeper problem where the line between direct action and terrorism has become dangerously blurred, and this will continue to have a chilling effect on protest and free speech. People must be able to stand up, speak out, and take part in protest without fear of being labelled a terrorist and arrested…
“There is an urgent need to update the existing definition of terrorism to enable current, and future governments to uphold their duty to safeguard the public and national security, whilst protecting people’s rights and preventing overreach.”
Whilst the High Court’s decision does not strike down the ban on the group, the Metropolitan Police have said that it will not arrest people for expressing their support for the group until all the legal issues around the case have been concluded. The government have already signalled its intention to appeal the ruling, a move that has been supported by the Conservatives. By contrast, the Lib Dems welcomed the High Court ruling, saying that the government’s actions had undermined public trust in civil liberties.
This article highlights a number of different issues relating to pressure groups and rights. Firstly, it demonstrates the risks that outsider groups take when they engage in direct action and intentionally seek to break the law. When their stated goals are in direct opposition to government policy, the government are able to use the law to try and limit their ability to protest. However, in doing so the government faces criticism from civil liberties groups for abusing their power.
The ruling also highlights the legal limits on the right to protest in the UK. Many rights in the UK have legal limits attached to them (such as restrictions on hate speech in relation to free speech), and whilst expressing support for Palestine is entirely legal, doing so via Palestine Action is currently not.
If required, it is possible that the government could amend the Terrorism Act to change the threshold required for inclusion on the proscribed list. However, to do so would risk being accused of undermining the judiciary – something Labour were highly critical of the Conservatives for in relation to the Rwanda scheme.