In a significant legal reversal, the High Court has deemed the Home Office’s ban on the protest group Palestine Action to be unlawful, a decision that has profound implications for freedom of expression and assembly in the UK. The ruling, delivered on 13 February 2026, has been described as a pivotal moment for the activists involved and a setback for the government, potentially affecting hundreds of ongoing prosecutions against supporters of the group.
A Monumental Victory for Activism
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, expressed her elation following the court’s decision, labelling it a “monumental victory” for the fundamental freedoms of individuals in Britain, as well as the broader struggle for Palestinian rights. The judgment, made by Justice Victoria Sharp and two other senior judges, highlighted that the Home Office’s decision to classify Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was both “disproportionate” and a significant infringement on rights to free speech and assembly.
The judges noted that while some of Palestine Action’s actions may have been criminal, they did not meet the threshold to warrant a terrorism designation. This ruling challenges the government’s narrative surrounding the group and calls into question the legal justification for the ban, which had been imposed following activist actions that resulted in damage to military property last year.
The Legal Landscape Changes
The implications of the ruling are far-reaching. Although the ban remains effective for the time being, the Metropolitan Police have announced they will no longer arrest individuals merely for expressing support for Palestine Action. Instead, they will focus on gathering evidence for potential future offences, marking a shift in their approach amidst the ongoing legal debate.
Since the ban was enacted in July 2025, thousands of individuals have faced arrest for displaying placards in solidarity with Palestine Action, with nearly 700 charged under terrorism laws. This ruling may open the door for these cases to be reconsidered, as it casts doubt on the legality of the government’s previous actions.
Voices of Concern and Support
The response to the High Court’s ruling has been mixed. While many activists and human rights advocates have welcomed the decision, stating it underscores the importance of protecting peaceful protest, government officials have expressed their dissatisfaction. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has publicly stated her intent to appeal the ruling, indicating that the legal battle is far from over.
Opposition figures, including Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, have supported the government’s stance, arguing that Palestine Action’s activities are rooted in intimidation and violence. Meanwhile, human rights organisations have called for the immediate withdrawal of terror charges against those who have protested peacefully, emphasising that the ruling should not be seen as an endorsement of any unlawful actions taken by a minority within the group.
The Road Ahead
As legal teams prepare for further submissions, the next steps in this unfolding story remain uncertain. The judges have tasked both the Home Office and Ms. Ammori’s lawyers with preparing their cases for an upcoming court date, where the future of the ban will be debated again. Activists who have faced charges feel a sense of limbo, with many unsure about their legal status as they await the outcome of the appeal.
Angie Zelter, one such activist facing charges for her peaceful protests, articulated the anxiety many feel: “We don’t really know where we are.” This sentiment resonates deeply within the community of supporters who view the High Court’s ruling as a beacon of hope amid uncertainty.
Why it Matters
The High Court’s decision not only questions the government’s use of terrorism laws against protest groups but also sets a precedent for how civil liberties are protected in the UK. As the legal process unfolds, the ruling could redefine the boundaries of lawful protest and free expression, ensuring that those who advocate for change through peaceful means are not unjustly penalised. This case highlights the delicate balance between national security and the fundamental rights of citizens, a balance that must be navigated with care to uphold the principles of democracy.
