“I have decided to proscribe Palestine Action undersection 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 . A draft proscription order will be laid in Parliament on Monday 30 June. If passed, it will make it illegal to be a member of, or invite support for, Palestine Action. This decision is specific to Palestine Action and does not affect lawful protest groups and other organisations campaigning on issues around Palestine or the Middle East. The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton in the early hours of the morning on Friday 20 June is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action. The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this Government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk. Counter Terrorism Policing are leading the criminal investigation into this attack. It is important that this process is free from interference and the police are allowed to carry out their important work gathering evidence and working to bring perpetrators to justice. Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) ‘Five Eyes’ allies and the UK defence enterprise. Its activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Palestine Action has also broadened its targets from the defence industry to include financial firms, charities, universities and government buildings. Its activities meet the threshold in the statutory tests established under theTerrorism Act 2000 . This has been assessed through a robust evidence-based process, by a wide range of experts from across government, the police and the Security Services. In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the Government. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022; and last year at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The seriousness of these attacks includes the extent and nature of damage caused, including to targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public fleeing for safety and subjected to violence. The extent of damage across these three attacks alone, spreading the length and breadth of the UK runs into the millions of pounds. During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over a million pounds worth of damage including to parts essential to submarines. The Sheriff, in passing custodial sentences for the attackers’ violent crimes, spoke of the panic among staff who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown in the area where they were evacuating. He further recorded the extent of damage to legitimate business activities which included ‘matters of nationwide security’ and disputed the groups’ claims its actions were non-violent. The attacks at Elbit Systems in Bristol and Intro Precision in Kent remain sub judice. To avoid prejudicing future criminal trials the Government will not comment on the specifics of these incidents. Palestine Action has provided practical advice to assist its members with conducting attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property. In late 2023, Palestine Action released ‘The Underground Manual’. The document encourages the creation of cells; provides practical guidance on how to carry out activity against private companies and government buildings on behalf of Palestine Action; and provides a link to a website which contains a map of specific targets across the UK. The manual encourages its members to undertake operational security measures to protect the covert nature of their activity. Through its media output, Palestine Action publicises and promotes its attacks involving serious property damage, as well as celebrating the perpetrators. Palestine Action’s online presence has enabled the organisation to galvanise support, recruit and train members across the UK to take part in criminal activity and raise considerable funds through online donations. The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK and has pledged to escalate its campaign. It is vitally important that that those seeking to protest peacefully, including pro-Palestinian groups, those opposing the actions of the Israeli government, and those demanding changes in the UK’s foreign policy, can continue to do so. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. Should Parliament vote to proscribe, that right will be unaffected. What it will do is to enable law enforcement to effectively disrupt the escalating actions of this serious group. Only last month, Palestine Action claimed responsibility for an attack against a Jewish-owned business in North London where the glass-front of the building was smashed and the building and floor defaced with red paint including the slogan ‘drop Elbit’. Such instances do not represent a legitimate or peaceful protest. Regardless of whether this instance itself amounts to terrorism, such activity is clearly intimidatory and unacceptable. It is one that has been repeated many times by this organisation at sites the length and breadth of the UK. I have considered carefully the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activity. Proscription represents a legitimate response to the threat posed by Palestine Action. The first duty of government is to keep our country safe, which is the foundation of our Plan for Change. Given significant public concern over recent activities by this group, including the incident in Brize Norton last week, and balancing the relevant considerations, I have decided to confirm this decision to proscribe to the House in advance of laying the relevant order.”
“For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it – (a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, (b) prepares for terrorism, (c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or (d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.” (a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, (b) prepares for terrorism, (c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or (d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
“…a direct action protest group aimed at preventing military targets in the UK from facilitating gross abuses of international law.”
“Palestine Action’s aim is to take direct action against Israel’s arms trade in Britain and to stop the complicity of corporate actors in atrocity crimes.”
“Palestine Action targets corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex and seeks to make it impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestine.”
“97. Civil disobedience may be defined as a public, non-violent, conscientious act contrary to law, done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government (or possibly, though this is controversial, of private organisations): see e.g., John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) p. 364. Where these conditions are met, such acts represent a form of political protest, both in the sense that they are guided by principles of justice or social good and in the sense that they are addressed to other members of the community or those who hold power within it. The public nature of the act – in contrast to the actions of other law-breakers who generally seek to avoid detection – is a demonstration of the protestor’s sincerity and willingness to accept the legal consequences of their actions. It is also essential to characterising the act as a form of political communication or address. Eschewing violence and showing some measure of moderation in the level of harm intended again signal that, although the means of protest adopted transgress the law, the protestor is engaged in a form of political action undertaken on moral grounds rather in mere criminality.”
“If your inexperienced it’s best to start simple and build your way up. Dream up crazy ideas in your cell, remember that your action is to destrupt, damage or destroy your target”. [sic] The Underground Manual then refers to paint spraying. It recommends “smashing stuff … with an efficient sledgehammer in your hand” as something that is “very quick” and can cause “quite a bit of damage”
“The PRG unanimously concluded that JTAC’s assessment offers a basis on which the Home Secretary can hold a reasonable belief that based on its activity in the UK, Palestine Action is currently concerned in terrorism. The PRG concluded that the discretionary considerations weigh in favour of proscription and agreed that a robust comms strategy would be required to support a decision to proscribe, including sharing more detail on [Palestine Action’s] terrorist activity in the public domain.”
“11. As set out in the proscription advice of 26 March, the PRG unanimously agreed that [Palestine Action] is currently concerned in terrorism with three of the four criteria of the statutory test satisfied …. An organisation only needs to satisfy one criterion for you (Home Secretary) to reasonably believe it is concerned in terrorism. Not all of the groups on the list of proscribed organisations will have committed terrorist attacks, some may not have become involved in preparing for terrorism either having been proscribed solely for their involvement in promoting and encouraging terrorism. The PRG agreed that [Palestine Action] has been responsible for committing three terrorist attacks; [Palestine Action] is involved in preparing for terrorism (including through the distribution of its Underground Manual which provides practical advice to members on committing future attacks); and [Palestine Action] continues to promote and encourage terrorism (including through the glorification of the attacks it has committed and the perpetrators of those attacks). 12. As was set out in the proscription advice (26 March), proscription would provide significant benefits to operational partners working to disrupt [Palestine Action’s] activity. Proscription would provide law enforcement with additional levers to disrupt [Palestine Action’s] operation and critical infrastructure, operate overtly, and use media platforms to project legitimacy and potentially radicalise people to its cause.”
“…unless the statute deals with the point, the question whether there is a duty of prior consultation cannot be answered in wholly general terms. It depends on the particular circumstances in which each directive is made.”
“In my view, the rule is that, before a statutory power is exercised, any person who foreseeably would be significantly detrimentally affected by the exercise should be given the opportunity to make representations in advance, unless (i) the statutory provisions concerned expressly or impliedly provide otherwise or (ii) the circumstances in which the power is to be exercised would render it impossible, impractical or pointless to afford such an opportunity. I would add that any argument advanced in support of impossibility, impracticality or pointlessness should be very closely examined, as a court will be slow to hold that there is no obligation to give the opportunity when such an obligation is not dispensed with in the relevant statute.”
“at least a main purpose of section 40(2), if not the main purpose is to protect the public from a threat to national security”
“The requirements imposed by a direction must be proportionate having regard to the advice mentioned in paragraph 1(2) or, as the case may be, the risk mentioned in paragraph 1(3) or (4) to the national interests of the United Kingdom.”
“… it is necessary to determine (1) whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right, (2) whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective, (3) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective, and (4) whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter. … In essence, the question at step four is whether the impact of the rights infringement is disproportionate to the likely benefit of the impugned measure.”
“In stipulating that the requirements must be proportionate having regard to the risk, paragraph 9(6) reflects a principle which has roots in the common law: there are a number of cases where administrative acts of an oppressive or penal character have been quashed as being disproportionate … In the context of legislation enacted in 2008, however, it seems to me that Parliament can be taken to have been aware of the development of a more structured approach to proportionality by United Kingdom courts, in particularly following de Freitas, and to have intended that that approach should be applied. I would therefore interpret paragraph 9(6) as stipulating that the requirements must be proportionate to the risk in the sense that they meet the second, third and fourth criteria listed in para 74 …”
“the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities”
“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. (2) No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of those rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
“108. … in order to determine the proportionality of a general measure, the court must primarily assess the legislative choices underlying it. … The application of the general measure to the facts of the case remains, however, illustrative of its impact in practice and is thus material to its proportionality ... 109. It follows that the more convincing the general justifications for the general measure are, the less importance the court will attach to its impact in the particular case… 110. The central question as regards such measures is not … whether less restrictive rules should have been adopted, or, indeed, whether the state could prove that, without the prohibition, the legitimate aim would not be achieved. Rather the core issue is whether, in adopting the general measure and striking the balance it did, the legislature acted within the margin of appreciation afforded to it ...”
“A general rule means that a line must be drawn, and it is for Parliament to decide where. The drawing of a line inevitably means that hard cases will arise falling on the wrong side of it, but that should not be held to invalidate the rule if, judged in the round, it is beneficial.”
“… where there is an ab ante challenge to a legislative provision (that is to say, a challenge to the provision in advance of its application to any particular facts), the striking down of the provision is only justifiable if the court is satisfied that it is incapable of being applied in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, whatever the facts may be. If the legislation is capable of being applied compatibly with the Convention, then it will survive an ab ante challenge.”
“This review of Strasbourg authority has concerned cases of protest or political expression aimed at governments and involving public property rather than private property. In the context of public property, damage inflicted in a violent or non-peaceful manner attracts no Convention protection against prosecution and conviction; and nor does causing significant damage because its infliction could not sensibly be thought of as peaceful, alternatively prosecution and conviction would necessarily be proportionate. Moreover, there is no “clear and constant” jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court that suggests that damaging private property during protest attracts the protection of the Convention in the first place or, in the second, that prosecution and conviction for damaging private property would be disproportionate even if it did. That is unsurprising because in addition to the usual questions about the applicability of a Convention right and then proportionality the A1P1 rights of the non-state owner are in play. We find it difficult to imagine that the Convention could ever be used to avoid conviction for damaging private property, even if very rarely it might be when considering damage to public property which is not significant. …”
“Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”
“113. In Ždanoka v Latvia, having reviewed the preparatory work on the Convention, the Court said that the reason why art.17 had been included in it had been that it could not be ruled out that a person or a group of persons would attempt to rely on the rights enshrined in the Convention to derive the right to conduct activities intended to destroy those rights. 114. However, art.17 is, as recently confirmed by the Court, only applicable on an exceptional basis and in extreme cases. Its effect is to negate the exercise of the Convention right that the applicant seeks to vindicate in the proceedings before the Court. In cases concerningart.10 of the Convention , it should only be resorted to if it is immediately clear that the impugned statements sought to deflect this Article from its real purpose by employing the right to freedom of expression for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention.”
“30. The purpose of art.17, in so far as it refers to groups or to individuals, is to make it impossible for them to derive from the Convention a right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention; ‘therefore, no person may be able to take advantage of the provisions of the Convention to perform acts aimed at destroying the aforesaid rights and freedoms…’ (see Lawless v Ireland (1979-80) 1 EHRR 15 at [7]). Although to achieve that purpose it is not necessary to take away every one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed from groups and persons engaged in activities contrary to the text and spirit of the Convention, the Court has found that the freedoms of religion, expression and association guaranteed by arts 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention are covered by art.17… 31. Speech that is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention is not protected by art.10 by virtue ofart.17 of the Convention … The decisive point when assessing whether statements, verbal or non-verbal, are removed from the protection of art.10 by art.17, is whether the statements are directed against the Convention’s underlying values, for example by stirring up hatred or violence, and whether by making the statement, the author attempted to rely on the Convention to engage in an activity or perform acts aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in it…”
“46. … the one-sided coverage with repetitive incitement to participate in fights and actions, incitement to join the organisation/the guerrilla, and the portrayal of deceased guerrilla members as heroes, amounted to propaganda for the PKK, a terrorist organisation, and that it could not be considered only a declaration of sympathy. In addition, the applicant company had been financed to a significant extent by the PKK … 47. Consequently, the Court finds that, taking account first of the nature of the impugned programmes, which included incitement to violence and support for terrorist activity, elements extensively examined by the national courts, secondly, the fact that the views expressed therein were disseminated to a wide audience through television broadcasting and, thirdly, that they related directly to an issue which is paramount in modern European society – the prevention of terrorism and terrorist-related expressions advocating the use of violence – the applicant company’s complaint does not, by virtue ofart.17 of the Convention , attract the protection afforded by art.10.”
“Freedom of political debate, which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society, also includes the free expression by prohibited organisations of their views, provided that these do not contain public incitement to commit terrorist offences, or condone the use of violence.”
“i. Be careful not to confuse supporting this proscribed organisation with protestors demonstrating general support for Palestine. The support must be directed towards the proscribed organisation itself. ii. It is important to note that being in support of de-proscribing Palestine Action would not necessarily be supporting Palestine Action. iii. The group themselves are proscribed, and not the activity or the cause, for example, saying ‘shut down Elbit Systems’, which is one of their aims, would not be supporting a proscribed organisation. iv. Saying ‘stop genocide, free Gaza’, or similar pro-Palestinian chants would not be supporting a proscribed organisation. v. Disagreeing with proscription is not supporting a proscribed organisation. vi. Sending money to support the deproscription fund would also not be an offence.”
“In relation to section 31(2A), the court is concerned with evaluating the significance of the error on the decision-making process. It is considering the decision that the public body has reached, and assessing the impact of the error on that decision in order to ascertain if it is highly likely that the outcome (the decision) would not have been substantially different even if the decision-maker had not made that error. It is not for the court to try and predict what the public authority might have done if it had not made the error. If the court cannot tell how the decision-maker would have approached matters, or what decision it would have reached, if it had not made the error in question, the requirements of section 31(2A) are unlikely to be satisfied.”