Palestine Action Outlawed: Property Damage Cited for Terrorism
Milica Starinac | 24 July 2025
Summary
Palestine Action was proscribed on 3 July as a terrorist group under Terrorism Act 2000, following their targeting of military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.
The proscription sparked criticism, as it is the first group whose proscription was justified by “serious damage of property”. Concerns arose regarding freedom of expression, proportionality, and potential implications for activist groups, such as Extinction Rebellion, that employ direct action.
The designation is expected to be challenged in court on human rights grounds, while public backlash and erosion of trust in counter-terrorism policing may grow — especially if the use of counter-terrorism measures in relation to the wider pro-Palestine movement is seen as excessive or unjustified.
Following the vote in the House of Commons held on 3 July 2025, Palestine Action — a pro-Palestinian organisation known for using direct action to target Israeli military industry and protest against UK arms exports to Israel — has been officially proscribed as a terrorist organisation under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000. The proposal, put forward by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper on 23 June 2025, days after members of Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton airbase and spray-painted fighter jets red, passed by 385 votes to 26. The Court of Appeal rejected the group’s bid to temporarily stop the ban, which came into effect on 5 July 2025. The proscription order included two other groups — Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) and Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) — both of which are neo-Nazi groups engaging in violence against people, as opposed to property. This brings the total number of proscribed groups in the UK to 84, however experts warn that Palestine Action is the only one proscribed on the basis of violence against property, which makes this decision controversial. Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have issued statements criticising the decision and questioning its impact on fundamental rights such as the right to free speech.
In her statement justifying the move, Cooper listed incidents resulting in serious damage of property organised by Palestine Action, including attacks on Thales, Instro Precision and Elbit Systems UK — all military companies supplying arms or technology to Israel. Moreover, she stated that the organisation provided “The Underground Manual” which laid out instructions and targets for supporters who wanted to participate in subversive activities. While “serious damage to property” is one of the subclauses of Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000, no other organisation was previously proscribed just due to the extent of damage to property, making this interpretation of the Terrorism Act a “dangerous precedent” according to some experts. Moreover, the application of this clause on Palestine Action likely goes beyond the legislator’s intent: during a parliamentary debate preceding the adoption of the updated Terrorism Act 2006, then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, assured the MPs who were concerned about the clause being used on anti-war activists who target military infrastructure that the clause on damaging property should not apply to “direct action”.
Direct action, which includes property damage as a method of protest, has been used by social movements for decades, most notably by the suffragettes and, more recently, by anti-war movements. The perpetrators consciously commit criminal offences against symbolic targets and accept the punishment in order to send a far-reaching message about their objectives. Other contemporary activist groups using direct action include Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil — both of which have also been responsible for serious property damage without endangering people — and with the seemingly lowered threshold for proscription, both could face a similar threat as Palestine Action should some future government decide to use the precedent set by Cooper. The proscription will likely deter such direct action by Palestine Action and their supporters in the future, but the wider non-violent protest movement could possibly be fueled by what can be perceived as an unjustified and excessive repression. The weekend following the ban, protests were held at several UK cities, with over 70 people being arrested under the Terrorism Act charges. Potential convictions of Palestine Action activists and supporters – some of whom could be facing up to 14 years in prison – could also cause backlash among the wider public.
The proportionality of the decision was questioned: under the Terrorism Act 2000, anyone who is a member, expresses support for the group, or even wears a badge that could be interpreted as support for the group could face a prison sentence. These extraordinary counter-terrorism measures will most likely have a chilling effect on the wider anti-war movement protesting against the Israeli actions in Gaza. The police already arrested over 20 citizens — including an 83-year-old priest — who protested the proscription decision outside of the parliament. The risky move by the Home Secretary could possibly further erode public approval of the government’s stance towards the war in Gaza. The net favourability towards Israel among UK citizens is at an all-time low; over 40% think that the government should be more critical to Israel, and a strong majority — particularly among Labour voters — supports an arms embargo on Israel. The decision is likely to cause a backlash among the pro-Palestinian part of the public, and draw some voters who find this issue highly salient away from Labour. From a security perspective, this decision risks undermining public trust in counter-terrorism policing, potentially having a negative impact on aspects of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy that rely on public cooperation, such as the PREVENT duty.
Leicester Gazette/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Forecast
Short-term (Now - 3 months)
The police are likely to carry out an increased number of arrests and charges under the Terrorism Act, particularly for non-violent offences such as expressing support for Palestine Action.
While there is a realistic possibility that the decision will initially have a chilling effect on the wider pro-Palestinian movement, public backlash will likely increase as police start to widely use counter-terrorism measures to target supporters of Palestine Action, and particularly if the persecution fails in high-profile cases.
Medium-term (3-12 months)
The designation will likely be challenged in court, particularly as persecutions begin. The legal dispute will likely be supported by international human rights organisations, such as Liberty or Amnesty International.
Courts will likely have to clarify the boundary between protest and terrorism, especially if proportionality is challenged under ECHR Article 10 (freedom of expression).
Long-term (>1 year)
There is a realistic possibility that, if the perceived disproportionality of counter-terrorism powers continues, public trust in counter-terrorism policing (especially PREVENT) may erode further, potentially weakening community engagement and early warning systems.
It is likely that the Labour government will further alienate voters who rank the UK’s position regarding the war in Gaza as a top issue.
