In June 2025, the Home Secretary announced the proscription of Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, effective 5 July, following incidents including alleged damage to military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. The Act allows for proscription if the Home Secretary believes an organisation is “concerned in terrorism,” which includes actions motivated by ideology that result in serious property damage.
The proscription of Palestine Action marked a significant expansion of counter-terrorism laws into areas traditionally associated with political protest. This development has renewed debate about the distinction between legitimate activism and conduct that falls under terrorism legislation. As a result of the proscription, sections 11-13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 made it a crime to be a member of, invite support for, or engage in supportive meetings, displays, or fundraising for such groups. This means that expressions of political solidarity can be subject to counter-terrorism laws if they involve supporting a proscribed organisation.
Read Also: UK faces hurdles to replicate US Meta settlement
Bestselling author Sally Rooney, known for her novel “Normal People,” publicly stated her intention to continue supporting Palestine Action and using her work’s proceeds for this purpose. Although Palestine Action is not proscribed in Ireland, this declaration created an issue for her British publisher. Under section 15(3), providing money or property with knowledge or reasonable suspicion that it may be used for terrorism is a crime. Similarly, section 17 criminalises participating in funding arrangements that make money available to another person with the requisite knowledge or suspicion. Both offences carry a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
Faber, Rooney’s publisher, could not ignore the potential destination of future royalties. One possible solution was to continue selling Rooney’s books without passing on earnings to her, but this was deemed “an unconscionable situation.” With Rooney’s agreement, Faber stopped supplying her books in the UK. Although no court has banned Rooney’s novels and existing copies can still be sold by retailers, the financial offences have had a comparable practical effect: the books have become collateral damage in the proscription regime’s consequences. This situation highlights the challenge of separating the label of proscription from its legal implications, particularly when it comes to the tension between criminal provisions targeting financial support and a publisher’s obligation to distribute an author’s work.
