Ruling against Palestine Action ban is embarrassing defeat for the government

Proscription of British direct action group has been fiercely controversial from moment it was proposed last June

The list of those who criticised the ban on Palestine Action and its consequences was disparate to say the least, taking in a Trump administration official, a former director of public prosecutions, a former director of the security services, Home Office officials, politicians of different stripes, and UN experts, not to mention a host of NGOs.

Now a trio of senior judges can be added to the list, after they deemed the ban to be “disproportionate” and impinging on freedom of speech and protest when the direct action group’s activities could be targeted under the existing criminal law.

From the point in June last year when the then home secretary, Yvette Cooper, first announced her intention to proscribe Palestine Action, the ban has been hugely controversial.

While “serious property damage” is a criterion for a ban under the Terrorism Act 2000, the legislation had previously only been used on groups intent on violence to the person, such as Islamic State and Boko Haram.

As such, its use against Palestine Action, a group that targeted the UK sites of the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems and others it said were complicit in genocide against the Palestinians, jarred with many.

As well as its reliance on the “serious property damage provision” in the Terrorism Act, the ban also drew attention to the fact that the UK is one of the few countries where recklessly expressing support for a proscribed organisation is an offence.

Never before had a direct action group been banned, fuelling perceptions, despite government denials, that suppressing pro-Palestinian voices was more important to ministers than stopping the slaughter of tens of thousands of people trapped in Gaza.

The advocacy organisations We Believe in Israel and the Campaign Against Antisemitism had pressed the government to proscribe Palestine Action, and the Guardian had previously revealed meetings, under the Conservative government, with Elbit representatives and Israeli embassy officials, that were apparently concerned with cracking down on the group.

Cynicism only increased in the run-up to the parliamentary vote on the ban as the Home Office briefed the Times that it was investigating whether Palestine Action was funded by Iran – a claim the Home Office later distanced itself from and which the independent reviewer on terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, who supported the ban, told Channel 4’s Dispatches was “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” insinuation without foundation.

There were also concerns that two neo-Nazi groups, the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, were included on the same banning order, which meant MPs were forced to vote on banning all or none of them.

If the government expected the controversy to settle down after the ban came into effect, it was to be disappointed. Not only was there a legal challenge – an injunction to stay the ban having been rejected – but also a campaign of civil disobedience. Scenes of pensioners, including clergy and war veterans, being carried away by police only added to criticism, with the Metropolitan Police Federation saying the extra demands on officers as a result of the repeated demonstrations, during which hundreds of people were arrested, were “unsustainable”.

Police interventions were simultaneously chilling and absurd. Laura Murton was threatened with arrest by armed officers for supporting Palestine Action after holding a sign saying “free Gaza” and a Palestinian flag. Marianne Sorrell, a retired teacher, was held by police for almost 27 hours, during which officers forced their way into her house and searched it, after she was arrested for holding a placard saying: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Jon Farley was arrested for carrying a placard reproducing a graphic from Private Eye magazine, which said: “Unacceptable Palestine Action: spraying military planes. Acceptable Palestine Action: shooting Palestinians queueing for food.”

Downing Street described Palestine Action as “a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage” and Cooper made similar statements but they seemed to be contradicted by documents released in the judicial review.

The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (Jtac), a government body based within MI5, produced a secret report on 7 March last year that was disclosed in the high court. While recommending banning Palestine Action, Jtac said the group “primarily uses direct action tactics”, which typically resulted in minor damage to property. “Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,” it said.

Whitehall officials also supported a ban, but conceded that proscribing the group would be “relatively novel” as “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”.

Ultimately, the judges found that “a very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 act”.

But in trying to categorise it as such, not only has the government suffered a humiliating defeat, it has transformed Palestine Action from a little-known protest group to one that is on the front page of newspapers.