The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that the government's decision to ban the Palestine Action group as a "terrorist organization" is correct. This ruling keeps the group on the list of banned organizations.
The court acknowledged the controversial nature of this decision in public discourse but stated that Palestine Action clearly promotes illegal violence, which falls under the scope of terrorism. The decision was made by a panel of five judges.
Palestine Action describes itself as a movement "determined to end global complicity in Israel’s genocide and apartheid regime." The group claims to use "disruptive methods" to interfere with the operations of companies and defense industry facilities it targets.
The UK police say the group's actions have caused millions of pounds in material damage to date. Arrests of the group's supporters continue within this context.
Some individuals demonstrating in support of the group outside the Court of Appeal in London were also detained following the ruling. The Metropolitan Police announced that arrests of participants in support actions will continue.
The ban dates back to last year. In June 2025, after Palestine Action entered the Brize Norton airbase in Oxfordshire and painted two military aircraft with red paint, the group was added to the list of banned organizations with parliamentary approval days later.
This decision was previously challenged in the High Court by one of the group's founders, Huda Ammori, who argued the ban was unlawful and disproportionate. The High Court ruled in February that the ban was unlawful, but the government appealed, and now the Court of Appeal has accepted the appeal and upheld the ban.
In its ruling, the court stated that while banning the group is controversial, it cannot ignore that Palestine Action supports illegal violence at a level that qualifies as terrorism. The ruling also emphasized that the Home Secretary has the authority and democratic responsibility in this matter.
After the Brize Norton incident in 2025, the vote to place the group in the same legal category as armed groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS was criticized. Opponents argued that a clear distinction should be made between acts of property damage and terrorist acts, and over 130 prominent figures objected to the ban.
Following the ruling, Huda Ammori announced plans to take the fight to the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the European Court of Human Rights.
Ammori argued that the ban is an extremely harsh intervention against freedom of expression and the right to protest, while human rights defenders said the decision equates protest with terrorism. Thomas Bell, the UK representative of Human Rights Watch, stated that criminal acts should be dealt with under normal criminal law and that using terrorism powers in this way creates an overly broad and problematic approach.
Anas Mustapha from CAGE International also argued that the ruling shows authorities are using their powers to suppress dissent. Representatives of the organization called for the law to be completely repealed.
