UK’s ‘terrorism’ laws risk overreach, watchdog warns

The British government risks stretching “counterterrorism” laws beyond their original ⁠purpose by using such powers against activist groups, a United Kingdom “terrorism” watchdog has said.

In his annual report examining the use of Britain’s “terrorism” legislation during 2024, independent ⁠reviewer Jonathan Hall said the subsequent banning of pro-Palestine group Palestine Action had exposed “real uncertainty” over whether serious damage to property alone should qualify as “terrorism”.

The law’s broad wording could without clearer limits risk pulling protest activity into “terrorism” policing, even where there is no intent to harm people, ‌Hall said.

“There is no legal authority on what ‘serious damage to property’ means,” Hall wrote, saying the definition could extend beyond violent attacks to acts such as criminal damage, depending on how courts interpret the threshold.

While he said it was unthinkable to remove property damage entirely from the legal definition of “terrorism”, he suggested lawmakers could narrow the test, for example, by requiring a risk to life, a national security dimension or exclusion ⁠for non-violent protest.

His report comes as the government appeals a ⁠High Court ruling that found the banning of Palestine Action unlawful on the grounds of free speech.

The ban, imposed in July 2025, remains in force pending the outcome of the appeal. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk warned ⁠at the time that using ”counterterrorism” legislation to implement the ban on Palestine Action risked “hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms across ⁠the UK”.

Palestine Action, founded in 2020, says its goal is to end “global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”, focusing mainly on weapons factories, particularly those owned by Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems.

Since the ban on the group was introduced, there have been about 3,000 arrests, mostly for displaying placards in support of the group, and hundreds of people now face charges.

Hall’s report also highlighted growing reliance on “counterterrorism” laws ⁠to police online propaganda and political expression.

The independent reviewer also looked at the 2024 banning of group Hizb ut-Tahrir and the far-right online Terrorgram network, describing both as cases where organisations were banned primarily for online ‌rhetoric rather than operational violence.

Interior Minister Shabana Mahmood said in a statement that she would review Hall’s recommendations before responding.