Former UK government Lawyer: UK in ‘moral and legal void’ over Palestine Action ban

The UK government is facing intensifying scrutiny after the High Court ruled that its proscription of direct action group Palestine Action was "unlawful" and "disproportionate", a decision that has thrown ongoing prosecutions and police enforcement into question.

The ruling has left the Home Office defending its decision to ban the group under anti-terror legislation, while also pressing ahead with an appeal. The ban remains in place pending further legal arguments.

Tim Crosland, a former government lawyer and co-founder of the Defend Our Juries activist group, told Anadolu that the government is now trapped in a "moral and legal void", holding activists in what he described as "catastrophic limbo" while its justification for the proscription unravels.

Crosland said it was "quite extraordinary" that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who previously took part in a direct action protest against goods from Israeli settlements in 2014, is now leading efforts to defend the ban.

"Shabana Mahmood is the same Shabana Mahmood who … said, ‘Well, this is what it takes to make a difference - this kind of direct action,'" Crosland told Anadolu. "So it is quite extraordinary to see her … in such a short space of time being the home secretary, determined to fight this ruling from the court."

The immediate legal dispute centres on whether the proscription order should be quashed immediately or remain in force during the appeal process. Crosland warned that keeping the ban in place could have severe consequences.

Since the measure came into force in July 2025, more than 2,700 people have been arrested under the legislation, including pensioners, wheelchair users and the daughter of a Holocaust survivor. Crosland said thousands of people risk remaining charged under terrorism legislation for acts as simple as holding placards.

"The logic of that is that if the government loses at the Court of Appeal, keep the order in force until the appeal to the Supreme Court. And this could be months and years, and that cannot be right," he said.

The case has also raised questions about cost and proportionality. Police have spent well over £10 million enforcing the ban, according to reporting by the Observer.

That figure includes £8.73 million spent by the Metropolitan Police during just four days of protests in which arrests were made. Police sources told the newspaper that millions more will have been incurred in investigation and casework costs.

The Home Office reportedly spent £700,000 defending the proscription during the judicial review process, and further public funds are expected to be used as the government pursues its appeal.

Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the government had "used taxpayers’ money in order to arrest, prosecute and attack their own citizens’ rights to free speech - to pursue an unlawful ban."

Crosland also pointed to the acquittal of six activists accused of breaking into Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems in Filton in 2024 as a significant development.

The activists had previously been held on remand for approximately 17 months, far longer than the usual six-month limit, after terrorism legislation was used at an early stage of the case, even though final charges were not terrorism-related.

"The jury, who hears all the evidence, refused to find Palestine Action guilty of anything, not even of the low-level charge of criminal damage," Crosland told Anadolu. "So, on appeal, that will be really significant information."

He further criticised the government’s handling of intelligence claims. Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, dismissed suggestions of Iranian funding or secret intelligence as "smoke and mirrors".

"In other words, the government's own terrorism adviser has more or less said that the then-home secretary … was dishonest with the public and with parliament," Crosland said.

Despite the High Court ruling, the Metropolitan Police have said they will stop making immediate arrests under the proscription but will continue gathering evidence for potential future prosecutions.

Crosland described the situation as "chilling and Orwellian", warning that activists remain under investigation despite the court’s findings.