UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – A 22-year-old was arrested over a £7m attack on RAF Brize Norton planes by Palestine Action, which has since been proscribed as a terror group.
As reported by The Telegraph, counter-terrorism police have detained a young man in Bedford on suspicion of terrorism following an attack on two RAF planes.
What led to the arrest of the RAF plane attack?
According to Counter Terrorism Policing South, the suspect remains in custody. The damage to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton occurred on June 20.
The incident, claimed by Palestine Action, caused £7 million in damage. Four people were charged last month in connection with the event.
What did the government say about proscribing Palestine Action?
Following the group’s claim of responsibility, the British government banned Palestine Action under anti-terror laws.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action, condemning the group’s vandalism of two planes as “disgraceful.”
What are the legal challenges against Palestine Action’s ban?
Palestine Action’s co-founder has won approval to challenge the group’s ban as a terror organisation in the High Court.
Legal counsel for Huda Ammori asked a judge to allow a High Court challenge, calling the ban an unlawful restriction on free speech.
Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said on 31 July that two points raised by Ms Ammori were “reasonably arguable” and will be heard during a three-day hearing in November.
The judge later declined a request to temporarily suspend the ban on the direct action group pending the outcome of the challenge.
In his initial ruling, the judge said it was arguable that the ban “amounts to a disproportionate interference” with Ms Ammori’s rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
He stated,
“That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing, and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.”
The judge said the allegation that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action could be heard in a full hearing.
Mr Justice Chamberlain stated,
“As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose. Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.”
Ms Ammori was denied permission by the judge to challenge the government’s ruling on multiple grounds, including allegations that the Home Secretary failed to properly review Palestine Action’s operations and the ban’s impact on affiliated individuals.
The judge rejected the request for a temporary block, citing a “powerful public interest” in keeping the ban in place and noting no significant change in circumstances since the previous hearing.
He stated,
“If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.”
In a detailed 18-page judgement, Mr Chamberlain said,
“If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates’ courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court.”
He stated,
“That would be a recipe for chaos. To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.”
The judge said that pro-Palestine and Gaza demonstrators, even those with no connection to Palestine Action, had also encountered police action, including questioning and arrests.
He added it was
“important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions. Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views.”
What did Ms Ammori say about the judicial review ruling?
After the first ruling, Ms Ammori stated,
“This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary’s unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.”
She added,
“We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.”
What did Raza Husain KC say about the UK’s ban on Palestine Action?
Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori, argued in court that the ban on Palestine Action had turned Britain into “an international outlier” and described the decision as “repugnant.”
He added,
“The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.”
How did the Home Office justify the Palestine Action ban?
The Home Office is standing by its decision to proscribe Palestine Action, arguing that the group’s conduct, particularly incidents involving significant property damage, falls within the scope of terrorism legislation, according to written submissions by Sir James Eadie KC.
Home Office lawyer Ben Watson KC said that the appropriate venue to challenge the ban on Palestine Action was the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, not the High Court.
Key facts about Palestine Action
- Established on 30 July 2020 by Huda Ammori and Richard Barnard.
- The goal is to stop UK arms sales to Israel by targeting companies like Elbit Systems.
- It uses non-violent but disruptive actions like vandalism, protests, and building takeovers.
- It was declared a terrorist group in the UK on 5 July 2025; supporting it is now illegal.
- Entered RAF Brize Norton, attacked Elbit sites, and defaced Cambridge’s Senate House.