Name: Palestine Action wins High Court challenge against government ban | BBC News
Uploaded: 2026-02-13T17:14:54.000Z
Duration: 9 min 12 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

The UK government's ban on a Palestinian campaign group under terrorism legislation has been found unlawful.

Adverbs of degree

In a dramatic ruling by the High Court in London, a judge said the ban on Palestine action resulted in a very significant interference with the right to freedom of speech.

Thousands of people have been arrested in recent months for holding signs with the group's name.

The ban on Palestine action remains in place, however, ahead of a further hearing and appeal by the government.

And the Metropolitan Police has said in the last few minutes it will focus on gathering evidence of potential offenses where support for Palestine action is expressed, rather than making arrests.

At the time, our legal correspondent Dominic Casciani was in court and says, this is a very significant ruling.

I mean, this is a massive blow for the Home Office.

This is the first time a group which has been banned under terrorism legislation has actually taken the case to the High Court in this fashion and effectively weren't at this stage getting a ruling that the way the ban was put in place was unlawful.

Now the question is, of course, what happens next?

Now we know the Home Secretary is going to appeal.

Shibana Mahmoud has already said so, as she's underlined in her statement today that she welcomes the fact that the High Court has accepted the Palestine Action is effectively a criminal organization which uses criminality in order to pursue its aim, effectively breaking into arms firms which are associated with Israel and effectively smashing up its property, saying they have the right to do so in order to stop what they call a genocide in Gaza.

And critically also that the High Court said a small number of those incidents had crossed the bar into acts of terrorism.

But the key thing in this case was that the High Court said on one level, the scale and the scale of activity by Palestine Action was pretty limited in terms of the terrorism allegation side of this.

And therefore what had happened prior to the ban had not reached effectively the intensity and scale needed to justify a ban on terrorism legislation.

It simply wasn't proportionate to act in that way at the time.

There were other criminal laws available, such as criminal damage.

I think this is the really interesting thing about this case, Regini, the Court said that in effect by banning this group, the Home Secretary had failed to take into account that it would have effectively an effect, a chilling effect on the rights of protest, because you would have people who want to protest about issues concerning, concerning Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza during the course of the war, and

they would effectively exercise self restraint and have a chilling effect on them.

My words, not the course I stress there they would basically potentially feel unwilling to come out and protest or find it harder to protest because of the association or potential association with this group.

Well, let's speak now to Lord Wolney, former government adviser on political violence, who's a critic of Palestine Actions methods.

Thank you very much, Lord Walney, for joining us on the program.

Looking at what we heard from the High Court, they said that the prescription of Palestine Action was disproportionate.

And I'm glad that the Home Secretary has immediately signaled that she will appeal this verdict because it is, it is of course obviously true that Palestine Action has used violence less frequently than other prescribed groups, although there have been a number of deeply alarming violent incidents.

But where I think this judgment has, what this judgment has overlooked is that is that economic damage is squarely within the definition of terrorism in this country.

It is not perhaps as well understood by the public, but

it is grounds on which to, to designate an organization as a terrorist organization.

And I'm trying to digest and must admit I find it rather perverse the ruling, the judgment that relates to this idea that this will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

Because I think for most people it's really quite clear that you can, you can say what you like in terms of a, a cause and you can, you can stand up for Palestinian rights or whatever, but

you're not entitled to break the law and commit criminal sabotage or violence on its behalf.

I think most people understand that distinction.

Is the law not nuanced enough then in your opinion?

Well, what I am, I am pressing the government to do now as a result of this, to accept an amendment that I've proposed to the police, the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently going through the House of Lords, which would I think have been able to, if this had been in place at the time, you could have avoided this five year long fiasco with Palestine Action.

And that is to give the government the power to, by an organization which is dedicated to criminal sabotage, as Palestine Action clearly is.

And I think that thought that was a notable part of the ruling, that they did not suggest that they were in some kind of noble tradition of civil disobedience.

But you could ban the organization for conducting those acts without going as far as labeling them as terrorists, which I think is what has caused much of the controversy, what has brought people out in support with these, these signs that ended up, they ended up with them getting arrested.

I think for Most people, that would seem a perfectly reasonable balance.

Yes, some people I don't take, I don't take this view myself, but

I understand why some people argue that they have not met the terrorist threshold.

Of course a big majority of people in this country would think it's not okay for an organization to willfully, openly, proudly being going about smashing stuff up in the name of whatever cause.

And whatever the cause may be, whether it's Palestine actions cause or many other causes, obviously people, the public will be aware that often there are demonstrations, actions where the vast majority of people are peaceful, but

elements within that organization, that demonstration are not being peaceful.

So that's why I asked you that question about nuances within the law.

I just want to get your reaction then to that Metropolitan Police statement saying it's going to focus on identifying offenses and gathering evidence rather than making arrests.

Is that pragmatic on the, on the police's part, given their resources are stretched and given that the, the High Court hasn't reached yet because there is an appeal.

So it may change its mind, you know, a settled position on this.

Well, I think I understand the police's response, but

I think they need to be clearer and I think they, they need to be absolutely clear that they will not, if Palestine action or supporters or copycat groups go about, go back to the kind of criminal sabotage campaign that has seen so many millions of pounds of damage being done and many thousands of workers being intimidated.

What I think they mean is on this follow up protest to them being prescribed, all of these people who frankly really should know better, who have performatively broken the law with signs to make their point and they are stretched.

And those people have been clogging up the criminal justice system and putting undue pressure on our courts, which frankly our courts cannot afford.

But I do understand the police's position in wanting to take a beat to understand where this, where this goes now.

Because if the, the, the, the ruling is upheld on appeal, then the, then those people who have been holding up the signs saying I support pales will not be liable.

Unlike those who've been committing the criminal violence in the name of Palestine, which we have to be clear, no matter what the cause is, is not the way that we do things in this country.

And to accept otherwise is effectively to be accepting that mob politics can rule in the name of whatever cause and we are a better country than that.

Lord Wolney, thank you very much for joining us.