Makes for a sobering read

14 Feb 2026
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/02/postpone-the-celebrations/

On the face of it the English High Court ruling that the Palestine Action
proscription is unlawful makes the decision that the proscription remains in
place pending appeal utterly illogical. But what if the High Court ruling is
deliberately designed to fail at appeal?

I believe that it is. They chose an extremely narrow path to rule that
proscription was unlawful and produced an extremely weak judgment. This gives an
impression of fairness in the judicial system - except that nothing has changed,
the ban remains in force. And it remains in force because the judgment is
designed for the government to win at appeal.

The judgment for the most part is precisely what you would expect from three
hand picked, known right wing, judges. They:

* State that Palestine Action is a terrorist group within the meaning of the
2000 Terrorism Act (para 134)
* State that they do not accept the United Nations assertion that the UK
definition of Terrorism is incompatible with international norms (para 141)
* State that in any case international law has no impact on English statute law
(para 142)
* State that all those arrested for showing support for Palestine Action -
specifically including for holding placards - were rightly arrested as they were
deliberately committing a criminal act (para 118)
* State that there was no need for Yvette Cooper to consult before the
proscription (para 60)
* Repeat the Crown's assertions of the Filton case as fact with no reference at
all to the findings of the jury (paras 34, 139)
* State that comparisons with Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion are not
valid as those organisations have not carried out serious property damage (para
144)
* State that the motive of Palestine Action in trying to stop Genocide is not
"material" (para 70)
* Argue that the interests of national security and protection of the rights and
freedoms of others justify the interference with freedom of speech and assembly
(para 128)

The judges have therefore supported the government on almost all of its key
propositions. You may well ask, how did they find all that and still find the
proscription unlawful?

Well, they chose a deliberately narrow and precarious path through. They first
found that the proscription was unlawful in that it contradicted the Home
Office's published policy on how the discretion of the Secretary of State would
be applied in deciding whether to proscribe a terrorist organisation.

It is important to understand this. The ruling is that Palestine Action is a
terrorist organisation, but that the Secretary of State is not obliged to
proscribe all terrorist organisations but may use her discretion.

Ctd ...