UK ban on Palestine Action unlawful, high court judges rule

[purpletablet]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/13/uk-ban-palestine-action-unlawful-high-court-judges-rule

Does this mean people will no longer be arrested for holding up a sign saying “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”?

Lobbying for your cause = bad

Vandalism, attacks on our country's ability to defend itself and bludgeoning policewomen with a sledgehammer for your cause = good

Defending your country does not require murdering and in some cases burning alive tens of thousands of defenceless women and children.

I'm talking about Palestine Action's attack on British military aircraft that they claimed was being used to refuel Israeli bombers (not physically possible) because Palestine Action are complete fuckwits who don't even do the most basic research before their stunts (see also 'we didn't think there would be any security guards at Elbit')

This explains Yvette Coopers position:

Opinions from legal professionals and Liberty

’ Akiko Hart, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said they welcomed the court’s finding but said “the practical effect will depend on the government’s appeal”.

Lui Asquith, associate in the public law team at law firm Russell-Cooke, said, while routine, the ruling was “an oddity” as “the rights-infringing proscription stands until the court stays otherwise”. She explained that the Home Office could argue for the ban to remain in place for longer until the appeal is heard.

Amanda Weston KC, a member of the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice, said the ruling was a “solid judgment” which will be difficult to appeal.
However, until a decision to quash the ban is made, it leaves matters “up in the air” for protesters facing prosecution for supporting Palestine Action.

Baroness Shami Chakrabarti said the judgment made clear that “the decision to proscribe the whole organisation and its many peaceful supporters was disproportionate”, adding: “Let those engaged in criminal damage be prosecuted but don’t make peaceful protestors guilty by association”.

The legal cost so far to the Government stands at £700,000.
Costs ongoing for an appeal unknown
and further costs for unlawful arrest and detainment, should the appeal be quashed, unknown.

This isn’t just a matter of costs and no amount of money can be more wisely spent in order to protect our freedom of speech.
I welcome the appeal if the Government consider it necessary in order to put this matter to bed.
I feel comfortable, given yesterday’s decision, that the Government will not win and our rights are protected in Law.

This is a simple criminal case, trespass and vandalism, no more than that.

The judge said that a small number of Palestine Action's actions met the legal definition of terrorism.

What do you think about that?

Which is Exactly what professionals in the field have said.
The Government can’t cherry pick who they think are terrorists.

Their reasons are clear…to shut down and intimidate people into not supporting the Palestinian people in the war in Gaza.

Had there not been so much support and so many demonstrations on our streets this would never have happened.

Just what Hamas did on 7 October 2023 including rape and torture all captured on film by the terrorists themselves.

I'm sure the policewoman whose back was broken will agree. Not.

What an unbelievable thing to post. Shame on you.

One person GBH.

I'm not defending anybody, unlike you with your posts. I reiterate 'shame on you.'

This is an absolutely mind blowing comment.

Inconsequential?

1200 completely innocent civilians lost theur lives in that attack. Thousands more lives affected by loss and trauma. 75,000 more lives lost in a war started on that day, most of them innocent. Countless homes and lives destroyed.

And you call what happened on October 7th 'inconsequential'?

You've lost touch with reality I'm afraid.

And that's ok is it? Wow. You are unbelievable.

I second that. Absolutely unbelievable.

So why support the one group that is set up to carry out such attacks?

Why not support one of the many non violent pro palestine groups that have not been proscribed?

How is saying don't support this one group with a history (and probably future) of criminality and violence, an attack on anyone's free speech?

Stray what? Acts of terrorism?

I'm not a fan of organisations that commit any acts of terrorism, personally.

Re
A small number of actions by PA crossed the legal bar

The High Court scrutinised when it becomes necessary for a Home Secretary to use their power to ban a group under terrorism laws.

The judges say that it's one thing for a minister to find that a group was involved in terrorism –and the High Court said that a small number of incidents carried out by Palestine Action crossed that legal line.
But it's another for them to then decide that those incidents meant the group should be banned.
That second decision – to ban the group – required a proper legal assessment of whether it was "proportionate" to do so.

Proportionality is a really important part of modern government law – it basically stops ministers from going all King Henry VIII and doing whatever they like.

The High Court said the decision to ban was wrong because the Home Secretary had not carried out that proportionality test correctly.
Yvette Cooper had focused on the benefits of a ban (it would help the police to disrupt Palestine Action's criminal activity) but had not considered the cons – most importantly a risk to the right to protest.

So the court concluded the Home Secretary's own policy on how to ban a group under terrorism laws "limits" when she should do so.

Hence the current judgement. The bar for proscribing PA as a terrorist organisation has not been met.

You do realise that the IOF has invaded Palestine and murdered and in some cases burnt alive tens of thousands of defenceless women and children.

The judge said that some of their actions did meet the legal definition of terrorism.

Not sure why so many people are keen to ignore that.

Yes of course I realise the IDF invaded Gaza and tens of thousands of people lost their lives as a result. Which is precisely why 7 October was not inconsequential. You do realize that was an invasion too, right? How do nations usually react to being invaded and having their citizens murdered and taken hostage during that invasion?

You're either so far down the rabbithole you can no longer see facts in front of your face, or you're deliberately trying to wind people up. What's the point?

Thats rhetorical btw, I won't bother responding to you.