Lifting Palestine Action ban would ‘re-arm sinister and dangerous movement’, Supreme Court warned

Lifting the ban on Palestine Action would “re-arm and revitalise a sinister and dangerous movement” and risk giving a “green light” to violent antisemitism, the Supreme Court has been warned.

Adam Wagner KC, representing the Community Security Trust (CST) and Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), said the UK Jewish community was “especially vulnerable to Palestine Action’s violent activities”, with activists having attacked Jewish charities and Jewish-owned businesses.

In written submissions to the UK’s highest court, he warned that overturning the group’s proscription could embolden perpetrators of “violent antisemitism more broadly”.

The warning came as five Supreme Court justices considered an appeal by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori against the Government’s decision to outlaw the group under anti-terrorism legislation.

The court reserved its judgment on Thursday, meaning the ban will remain in place while the justices consider their ruling.

Ms Ammori launched her legal challenge after then-home secretary Yvette Cooper banned Palestine Action in 2025.

Three High Court judges ruled in February that the decision was unlawful, but five Court of Appeal judges overturned that finding in June, concluding that the ban was lawful and a “justified and proportionate” interference with freedom of expression rights.

During Thursday’s hearing, Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori, argued that Palestine Action’s objectives “were aligned with, rather than abhorrent to liberal democratic values”.

In written submissions, he said only three of the 385 actions carried out by the group over five years had been assessed as meeting the definition of terrorism under the Terrorism Act.

More than 3,000 people have been arrested since the ban came into force, the court heard. A further 27 were arrested outside the central London court on Wednesday on suspicion of displaying support for a proscribed organisation.

The Home Office, which is opposing the appeal, insists the Court of Appeal made no legal error.

Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department, said the lower court had rejected attempts to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent direct action protest group”.

He argued that acts involving serious damage to property could constitute terrorism, even without violence or an intention to endanger life.

However, Rachel Scott KC, representing the Jewish Bloc, a coalition of Jewish organisations campaigning for Palestinian rights, disputed claims that Palestine Action had targeted the Jewish community.

She described that characterisation as a “fundamental fallacy” and a “fundamental misrepresentation of the underlying evidence”.

Scott warned against conflating criticism of Zionism or the Israeli government with antisemitism.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, Lord Reed, sitting alongside Lords Sales, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Stephens, said the court would consider its judgment after hearing further arguments in private.

“We will adjourn to consider the judgment we will give,” he said.