The Unlawful Proscription of Palestine Action: False Evidence, Contradicted Policies, and the Rule of Law

On the 13th February 2026, Huda Ammori won her high court challenge against the proscription of Palestine Action. The government’s ban on Palestine Action has been ruled unlawful following a successful judicial review brought by the co-founder. The judicial review proved the proscription of Palestine action was unlawful, however Palestine Action remains a banned organisation as Shabana Mahmood has appealed this decision.

Both the judgment itself and police statements have been emphatic on this point: displaying signs in support carries a potential 14-year sentence

The police have said they will “gather intelligence” – including with facial recognition software rather than arrest, PENDING Shabana Mahmood’s appeal, We must start asking questions, why are the police are allowing the commissioning of terrorist offences? Under who’s command? And if they are doing so, are they not in fact conspiring to entrap innocent citizens in the act of commissioning “terrorist offences”?

We must ALL come together and take collective action, because this is simply Tyranny!

How You Can Take Action:

1. Contact Your MP

https://www.writetothem.com/

2. Use the Action Alert below to complain to your MP regarding the unlawful proscription of Palestine Action & ensure you have following information to hand to enter into their website

Template

Re: The Unlawful Proscription of Palestine Action: False Evidence, Contradicted Policies, and the Rule of Law

Dear [Name of MP],

I am writing to you as your constituent to express my profound concern and outrage regarding the government’s now-defunct proscription of Palestine Action. As you will be aware, on 13th February 2026 , the High Court ruled this decision unlawful, delivering a damning indictment of the process followed by the Home Office under the then-Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper .

This ruling raises extremely serious questions about the integrity of the proscription process, the evidence used to justify it, and the Home Secretary’s adherence to her own department’s policies. I am asking you, as my representative, to address the following points.

1. Proscription Based on Unlawful and Flawed Grounds:
The High Court found that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was “disproportionate” and that the then-Home Secretary had failed to properly assess its impact on the right to protest . Crucially, the court stated that the “nature and scale” of the group’s activities had “not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify” proscription under the Terrorism Act . How can a decision so fundamentally flawed have been made, and what consequences should there be for those responsible?

2. The Use of “False Evidence”:
There are serious allegations that the case for proscription was bolstered by unsubstantiated or false claims. It has been reported that the government’s own terrorism adviser, Jonathan Hall KC, confirmed there was zero evidence to support suggestions, leaked to the press, of links between Palestine Action and Iran . Furthermore, there are reports that a 2023 Home Office email showed the government was seeking to reassure arms companies like Elbit Systems, the primary target of Palestine Action’s protests, that it was taking the group’s actions seriously . This raises a disturbing possibility: was the proscription designed to protect commercial interests of the arms industry, as alleged in a recent Channel 4 documentary, rather than for genuine national security purposes ?

3. Contravening Yvette Cooper’s Own Policies:
Most alarmingly, the High Court explicitly found that Yvette Cooper, in making the decision to ban the organisation, had not fully followed her own policies regarding the test for when an organisation should be proscribed under the Terrorism Act . A legal analysis of the judgment confirms that the decision was unlawful precisely because it went against the Government’s own policy framework, which is designed to limit the Home Secretary’s power . How can a Home Secretary be allowed to disregard the very policies designed to constrain such a draconian power? This represents a failure of process at the highest level.

The result of this unlawful decision has been the arrest of thousands of people, including priests, former magistrates, and retired doctors, for peacefully expressing solidarity with Palestine . It has been described by human rights organisations as a “grave misuse of terrorism laws” and a “severe chilling effect on lawful speech and assembly” .

Given that the High Court has found the original decision was disproportionate, breached the government’s own policy, and had a devastating impact on fundamental rights, I am asking you:

Will you call for a full and independent inquiry into how and why this unlawful proscription was pursued, including the role of any external influence from commercial or foreign lobbyists?
What assurances can you give that those who have been unlawfully arrested and charged under this now-quashed ban will have their records cleared and convictions overturned?
Will you oppose the government’s planned appeal, which seeks to uphold a decision the court has already found to be a “disproportionate” attack on civil liberties?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to receiving your response on these critical matters of justice, the rule of law, and government accountability.

Yours sincerely,

(Your Name)

Send your MP’s response to : info@mpacuk.org