The Government’s decision to ban Palestine Action under terrorism legislation is being challenged in the Supreme Court, as police make further arrests outside Britain’s highest court and judges consider whether the proscription unlawfully interferes with freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
The two-day hearing began in London on Wednesday 4 November 2026, with Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori appealing against a Court of Appeal judgment that upheld the Government’s decision to proscribe the organisation.
The Metropolitan Police reported 25 arrests outside the Supreme Court on suspicion of expressing support for a proscribed organisation, according to reporting published earlier today.
Supreme Court considers legality of Palestine Action ban
The case, R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerns the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000. The ban came into force on 5 July 2025 following parliamentary approval.
Under the legislation, an organisation may be proscribed where the Home Secretary believes it is concerned in terrorism, as defined by the Act. Proscription creates criminal offences relating to membership, certain forms of support and other specified activities connected with a banned organisation.
The Supreme Court has granted permission to consider whether the ban is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association. The hearing is scheduled to conclude on Thursday 5 November, with judgment expected later.
Earlier High Court ruling overturned on appeal
In February 2026, the High Court ruled that the Government’s proscription decision was unlawful. It found the decision inconsistent with the Home Secretary’s published policy and incompatible with rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. The ban remained in force pending appeal.
In June, the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment and upheld the proscription. On 29 July, the Supreme Court granted Ammori permission to appeal on the human-rights compatibility issue, but refused permission to pursue a separate argument about the interpretation and application of the Home Secretary’s policy. This distinction defines the scope of the current hearing.
Lawyers argue ban is disproportionate
Ammori’s lawyers argue that proscribing the entire organisation was a disproportionate response and that the Government could instead pursue individuals responsible for specific criminal offences.
The court was told that Government advisers had assessed only three of 385 actions attributed to Palestine Action over five years as meeting the relevant terrorism definition. Her legal team says that represents fewer than 1% of recorded actions. These figures are part of the appellant’s submissions, not an independent Supreme Court finding.
The lawyers contend that the ban has restricted political expression and association. The justices must determine whether interference with protected rights was legally justified and proportionate.
Home Office defends use of terrorism legislation
The Home Office opposes the appeal and maintains that the proscription was lawful. Government lawyers argue that the Terrorism Act 2000 is not confined to violence against people: serious property damage can fall within the statutory definition where other legal requirements are met.
The Government cites incidents involving defence-related facilities and allegations of violence involving security personnel. Its lawyers say the Court of Appeal correctly assessed the evidence.
The Home Office also maintains that the ban does not prohibit support for Palestinians or criticism of the Israeli Government, but restricts specified support for Palestine Action itself.
Further arrests outside Supreme Court
The opening day was accompanied by demonstrations outside the Supreme Court in central London. Sky News reported that the Metropolitan Police arrested 25 people on suspicion of expressing support for a proscribed organisation.
The arrests followed a separate protest outside the United States embassy on 31 October, at which police arrested 139 people, according to the Associated Press. These are separate events and should not be confused.
An arrest does not establish guilt. Charging decisions and any findings of criminal liability are matters for the criminal justice process.
More than 4,000 arrests reported since ban
Reuters reports that more than 4,000 people have been arrested in connection with expressions of support for Palestine Action since the organisation was proscribed. This cumulative total covers demonstrations over several months, not arrests at the Supreme Court alone.
Civil-liberties groups argue that the use of terrorism legislation against expressions of political support risks restricting lawful protest. The Government maintains that the proscription was approved by Parliament and is justified. The implications of any eventual judgment for individual cases will depend on its terms and the circumstances of those cases.
Civil-liberties organisations intervene
English PEN and PEN International have been granted permission to intervene, raising concerns about the consequences of proscription for writers, journalists, academics and public debate. Amnesty International UK and Liberty have also filed arguments concerning freedom of expression and assembly.
These organisations argue that restrictions on support for a political campaign group may affect people beyond its membership and must be subject to careful proportionality scrutiny. Their participation does not mean the court has accepted their arguments.
Jewish organisations raise security concerns
The Community Security Trust and Jewish Leadership Council have also intervened. Their submissions raise concerns about incidents involving Jewish organisations and businesses and the potential consequences of removing the ban.
Their lawyers argue that the threat posed by Palestine Action must be weighed when assessing proportionality. The court must consider the relevant legal protections and the Government’s responsibilities under terrorism legislation; it is not deciding the wider political dispute over Israel and Palestine.
What happens if the Supreme Court overturns the ban?
A judgment against the Government could have substantial implications for the legal basis of Palestine Action’s proscription. The precise consequences would depend on the judgment and subsequent legal or administrative steps.
It would be premature to conclude that all existing charges would automatically be withdrawn or that everyone previously arrested would receive compensation. Those matters could require separate decisions by prosecutors and courts. If the appeal is dismissed, the existing legal position remains unless changed through lawful processes. The proscription remains effective while the hearing proceeds.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court hearing is scheduled to continue on Thursday 5 November before Lords Reed, Sales, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Stephens. The justices will consider arguments from the appellant, the Home Office and permitted interveners. No final ruling had been issued at the time of publication.
The judgment is expected to address compatibility with freedom of expression and assembly. The case is an important test of the limits of Government powers to proscribe organisations under terrorism legislation and the safeguards protecting political expression and association.