Royal Courts of Justice to Deliver Verdict on Government’s Appeal Against Palestine Action Deproscription
On Monday, the Royal Courts of Justice will issue a crucial ruling on the government’s appeal against the proscription of Palestine Action — a decision with major implications for protest rights, direct action, and the UK’s expanding definition of “extremism.”
What Is the Government Appealing?
The Home Office originally proscribed Palestine Action, branding it an extremist organisation.
A tribunal later overturned the proscription, ruling it unlawful.
The government immediately appealed.
Monday’s verdict will determine whether ministers can reinstate the ban — or whether the courts will uphold the earlier ruling.
This is not a technical dispute. It is a test of how far the state can go in criminalising political movements that challenge UK complicity in Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
Civilian Deaths in Gaza: The Context Behind the Crackdown
The most up‑to‑date figures show that tens of thousands of Palestinians — including huge numbers of men, women, and children — have been killed in Gaza, with the majority being civilians.
Breakdown (as of 9 June 2026)
20,179 children killed
12,500 women killed
Men: not separately listed, but inferred as the remainder
These numbers form the backdrop to Palestine Action’s campaign — and to the government’s attempt to silence it.
Why the Verdict Matters for Protest Rights
The government’s attempt to re‑proscribe Palestine Action fits into a wider pattern:
Expanding the definition of extremism
Targeting direct action groups
Using counter‑terror frameworks to police dissent
Restricting protest through new public order powers
If the appeal succeeds, it could set a precedent allowing ministers to outlaw any movement that is effective, disruptive, or politically inconvenient.
If it fails, it will be a rare check on a government increasingly hostile to protest.
Historical Parallels: When the UK Tried to Criminalise Dissent
The attempt to re‑proscribe Palestine Action is not unprecedented. Throughout modern British history, governments have used policing, surveillance, and emergency powers to suppress movements that later proved morally justified.
Anti‑Apartheid Movement
The UK government surveilled and harassed anti‑apartheid activists, branding them subversive and disruptive. Today, those same activists are celebrated for standing against racial oppression.
Trade Union Struggles
From the 1926 General Strike to the miners’ strike of 1984–85, the UK state has repeatedly used emergency powers, mass arrests, and anti‑union legislation to crush movements that threatened political and economic interests.
The 1984–85 miners’ strike saw some of the most aggressive policing in modern British history. Thousands of miners were arrested, many were blacklisted, and entire communities were subjected to surveillance and intimidation.
The same era saw the Wapping dispute (1986–87), when Rupert Murdoch’s News International moved production to Wapping and sacked over 5,000 print workers. The government deployed military policing, mass arrests, and new legal restrictions to break the strike. Dozens of print workers were imprisoned.
These struggles reveal a consistent pattern:
When working‑class movements become powerful, the state responds with criminalisation, surveillance, and force.
The same logic is now being applied to Palestine Action — and potentially to any movement that uses disruption to challenge entrenched power.
Suffragettes
The suffragettes were imprisoned, force‑fed, and labelled extremists. Their direct action — now widely praised — was treated as a threat to national security.
Irish Civil Rights Movement
Peaceful civil rights activists in Northern Ireland faced police brutality, surveillance, and emergency powers, all justified under the language of security.
Environmental and Anti‑War Movements
From CND to anti‑roads campaigns to Stop the War, governments have repeatedly tried to delegitimise activists as extremists when their demands challenged state policy.
The pattern is unmistakable: when movements become effective, the state reaches for counter‑terror tools.
Recent Cases Show the Pattern: The Filton Four and the Erosion of Civil Liberties
The government’s attempt to re‑proscribe Palestine Action does not exist in isolation. As I’ve documented this week in two separate reports, the UK is entering a dangerous phase where dissent is increasingly treated as a criminal threat rather than a democratic right.
In The Filton Four: Sentenced for Dissent, I highlighted how four activists were handed severe sentences for actions aimed at exposing the UK’s role in arming Israel. Their prosecution shows how the state is now using the criminal courts not just to punish protests, but to deter political resistance altogether.
In Our Civil Liberties Under Attack, I examined the broader pattern:
expanding police powers
erosion of jury independence
counter‑terror frameworks used against activists
normalisation of pre‑emptive arrests
These cases are not anomalies. They are symptoms of a political strategy: redefine dissent as extremism, redefine activism as criminality, and redefine solidarity as a threat to national security.
Together, they show that the Palestine Action appeal is not just about one organisation — it is part of a systematic tightening of state power against protest across the UK.
A Line That Must Not Be Crossed
If ministers can outlaw a protest movement simply because it is effective, then no civil liberty in Britain is safe — not the right to dissent, not the right to organise, and not the right to challenge state power.
The Royal Courts of Justice as a Political Battleground
The Royal Courts of Justice have become a central arena in the struggle over protest rights. Recent rulings have:
Upheld sweeping police powers
Limited the ability of juries to hear moral arguments
Enabled pre‑emptive arrests of activists
But courts have also pushed back when ministers overreach.
Monday’s decision will reveal whether the judiciary is willing to draw a line — or whether it will endorse the government’s strategy of treating political activism as a security threat.
What’s Really at Stake
Although Palestine Action is the organisation named in the appeal, the broader question is:
Can the UK government outlaw a political movement because it is effective?
This verdict will shape the landscape for:
Climate activists
Anti‑racist organisers
Housing campaigners
Trade unionists
Anyone using disruption to force political change
The outcome will influence how future governments treat dissent — and how safe it is to challenge state policy.
What Happens Next
Whatever the verdict, the political consequences will be immediate.
If the government wins, expect renewed pressure on other movements.
If it loses, expect ministers to push for new legislation.
Either way, Monday marks a turning point in the fight over the right to protest, the limits of state power, and the future of civil liberties in the UK.
