LONDON

A landmark review of Britain’s counter-terrorism framework has warned that laws used to ban the protest group Palestine Action are being applied too widely, and that the government’s flagship anti-radicalization program is “not fit for purpose.”

The Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice -- a three-year inquiry led by former judge Sir Declan Morgan KC PC and 14 commissioners -- found that the country’s definition of terrorism risks “uncertainty and overreach in its application.”

The commission called for the definition to be tightened, recommending that property damage should only fall under terrorism laws when it poses “serious risk to life, national security, or public safety, or involves arson, explosives, or firearms.”

It also urged that measures used to ban groups such as Palestine Action be restricted to protecting the public from terrorism, and that such bans -- known as proscription orders -- should expire after five years unless renewed.

“The proscription of Palestine Action highlights several of the features of and concerns about the power to proscribe,” the report said. “Proscription is a powerful executive measure that can be enacted quickly.”

On June 20, 2025, two Palestine Action activists entered the Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Brize Norton and spray-painted two RAF aircraft. Three days later, the government announced plans to proscribe the group. The order was laid before Parliament on June 30 and took effect from July 5, 2025.

The government said “Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the Government,” citing attacks on military facilities and arms companies, a “willingness to use violence,” and threats to “UK national security.”

Palestine Action became the first organization to be banned primarily for property damage, and the first proscribed direct action group in the UK.

UN human rights experts warned that the move “sets a dangerous precedent,” saying terrorism designations should be “limited to groups involved in serious, large-scale atrocities or intense armed conflicts against state authorities, rather than protest movements that cause property damage.”

The review found that parliamentary oversight of proscription decisions is weak. It said the government relied on undisclosed information to justify the ban, and the Home Office declined to confirm whether its internal Proscription Review Group had raised objections.

Following the ban, police have made over 2,000 arrests for proscription-related offences by October 2025. Protesters carrying signs referencing Gaza were reportedly warned they risked arrest for allegedly showing support for a proscribed organization.

The High Court has since granted Huda Ammari, co-founder of Palestine Action, permission to challenge the proscription, ruling that it was “reasonably arguable” the order “constitutes a disproportionate interference with the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.”

While the commission acknowledged that proscription can disrupt terrorist organizations, it found "unintended consequences on communities associated with groups pursuing legitimate political goals, including self-determination."

It warned that proscription "can inadvertently criminalize legitimate activities, including NGO work in conflict zones, and hinder conflict resolution."

"The UK's decisions to proscribe organizations often influence similar actions by other states and international bodies," the report said.

"The gravity of these consequences demands transparent and meticulous scrutiny of both the proscription and de-proscription processes... They have found that the legal threshold and criteria for proscription are insufficiently robust, and discretion is too wide; there is insufficient oversight and scrutiny," it added.