High Court Strikes Down “Unlawful” Government Ban on Palestine Action in Human Rights Landmark
London, UK — February 16, 2026
In a definitive and historically resonant legal verdict, the UK High Court has declared the government’s proscription of the activist group “Palestine Action” to be unlawful.
The judgment, delivered in London on February 16, 2026, marks a seismic shift in the balance between national security powers and the fundamental right to political dissent.
The decision, presided over by Dame Victoria Sharp alongside Mr. Justice Swift and Lady Justice Steyn, concluded that the Home Secretary’s move to categorize the group as a terrorist organization was a disproportionate overreach that breached the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Articles 10 and 11, which safeguard freedom of expression and assembly.
The Legal Breakdown: Why the Ban Failed
The proscription, which was enacted late last year following a series of high-profile “direct actions” against arms manufacturing sites in the UK, had effectively criminalized membership in the group and made “expressing support” a terror-related offense.
However, the High Court found that the Home Secretary failed to follow the government’s own internal policy for proscription.
The judges noted that while some of the group’s activities involved property damage—such as the June 2025 incident where activists vandalized aircraft at a Royal Air Force base—these acts did not meet the “level, scale, and persistence” required to satisfy the legal definition of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The court’s reasoning was surgical: it argued that the criminal law already provides sufficient mechanisms to prosecute individuals for trespass or criminal damage without needing to resort to the “nuclear option” of a terror ban. By proscribing the entire organization, the government had created a “chilling effect” on thousands of peaceful supporters who were not involved in the direct actions but shared the group’s political objectives.
The judgment emphasized that in a democratic society, the state cannot simply “label its critics as terrorists” to facilitate easier policing or to suppress uncomfortable political narratives.
A “Line in the Sand” for Civil Liberties
Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International UK and Liberty, have hailed the ruling as a “line in the sand” against the erosion of protest rights.
Tom Southerden, Amnesty’s Law and Human Rights Director, remarked that the decision sends a clear message: “The government cannot reach for sweeping counter-terrorism powers for its convenience.”
This victory for the claimants, led by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori and a distinguished legal team including Raza Hussain KC, is seen as a turning point for many other activist groups that have feared similar state-led crackdowns.
Despite the ruling, the legal status of the group remains in a state of “suspended animation.”
The judges have kept the ban technically in place for a brief period to allow the government to file an appeal.
The Home Office has already indicated its intention to challenge the verdict, maintaining that the group’s promotion of “criminality as a political tool” is inconsistent with democratic values and the rule of law.
This sets the stage for a high-stakes battle in the Court of Appeal, which will ultimately define the limits of executive power in 2026.
Global Leadership and the Rule of Law
For the world leadership governance, this case is more than a local dispute; it is a test of the UK’s adherence to the international standards of justice it often promotes abroad.
If the government’s appeal fails, it will serve as a stark reminder that even in times of global geopolitical tension, the “brain” of a nation must not bypass the legal protections that prevent authoritarianism.
From the perspective of Castle Journal’s exclusive department, this ruling exposes a significant vulnerability in the UK’s current legislative strategy regarding “aggravated activism.”
The decision forces a re-evaluation of how the state manages dissent in an era where digital mobilization and direct action are becoming the primary tools for political change.
As the 2030 leadership goals approach, the UK must find a way to balance the maintenance of public order with the preservation of the “non-self” principle—where the state does not impose its ego upon the rights of the individual.
Key Highlights:
• High Court rules the proscription of Palestine Action was “unlawful” and “disproportionate.”
• Judges find the government breached Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.
• The ban remains technically active pending a government appeal, expected this week.
• The Metropolitan Police will shift to gathering evidence rather than making immediate arrests for “support.”
• Verdict marks a major victory for Huda Ammori and the legal team at Garden Court Chambers.
——————————-
Castle Journal Ltd
British company for newspapers and magazines publishing
Castle Journal newspapers are the only voice and the brain of the world leadership governance.
London-UK – licensed 10675
Founder | Owner| CEO
Abeer Almadawy
Abeer Almadawy is a philosopher who established the third mind theory research and the philosophy of non-self and trans egoism. She is also the author of the New Global Constitution for the leadership Governance 2030/2032. She has many books published in English, Arabic, Chinese, French and others.
