London’s Metropolitan Police arrested 139 people outside the United States Embassy on Saturday, October 31, after hundreds of demonstrators gathered to openly challenge Britain’s ban on Palestine Action. Officers began detaining people shortly after a lunchtime gathering started in Nine Elms, south London, and the total rose through the afternoon and evening as police said further arrests were still being made. The demonstration, organised by Defend Our Juries, was timed just days before the United Kingdom Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal on November 4 against the proscription of Palestine Action, a decision that will test the boundary between protest, free expression and counter-terrorism law.
This report explains what happened at the embassy, why the ban is contested, how the courts have ruled so far, and what remains unresolved. London Palestine Action arrests November 2026.
In This Article
What Happened Outside the US Embassy
A Lunchtime Gathering in Nine Elms
How the Arrest Total Rose Through the Day
Why Protesters Chose This Location and Moment
Timing Days Before the Supreme Court
The Ban at the Centre of the Dispute
How Proscription Works Under UK Law
From Elbit Actions to a Terrorism Designation
High Court, Court of Appeal, and What Comes Next
What the Supreme Court Will Be Asked to Decide
The Policing Operation in Detail
Dispersal Powers and the Embassy Grounds
Who Was Arrested and What Police Said
The Organisers and Their Argument
Defend Our Juries and Deliberate Defiance
The Claim of More Than 4,000 Arrests
Critics, Supporters and the Free-Speech Debate
Amnesty and MPs Raise Civil-Liberty Concerns
What Happened Outside the US Embassy
A Lunchtime Gathering in Nine Elms
The gathering began around lunchtime outside the embassy building in Nine Elms, where demonstrators held placards reading ‘I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action’ and waved Palestinian flags. An afternoon account described hundreds of people assembling in the area, with police moving in shortly after the action began. The organisers estimated about 400 people attended the London demonstration, while police did not publish an official crowd estimate in the reports available. A parallel demonstration was also held outside the United States Consulate in Edinburgh, where reports said no arrests were made there. The London protest was deliberately public: participants held signs that directly declared support for a proscribed organisation, knowing that such an expression could lead to arrest under the Terrorism Act.
How the Arrest Total Rose Through the Day
Police initially reported 48 arrests earlier in the day, before updating the figure to 139 by the early evening, at about 6:15 p.m. The Metropolitan Police said most of those detained were arrested on suspicion of expressing support for a proscribed organisation, and officers remained at the scene warning that further arrests could follow. The rising total reflected a steady process of detention rather than a single confrontation, with officers working through the crowd over several hours. A dispersal order covering parts of London, including the embassy grounds, was in place from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Police said they had acted on information that a group planned to show support for a banned organisation, and they warned that organisers or people providing logistical support could also face arrest.
Why Protesters Chose This Location and Moment
The Embassy as a Symbol
The choice of the United States Embassy was not accidental. The United States announced sanctions against Palestine Action in August and designated the group as a terrorist organisation, adding an international dimension to a domestic British legal dispute. By gathering outside the embassy, protesters linked the British ban to wider Western policy towards the group and towards the war in Gaza. The location also guaranteed visibility: an embassy protest draws diplomats, journalists and passers-by, and a mass arrest outside a foreign mission is difficult for authorities to ignore. For organisers, the embassy setting turned a legal test into a public spectacle, forcing a confrontation that would be recorded, counted and reported.
Timing Days Before the Supreme Court
The protest came only days before a two-day Supreme Court hearing scheduled to begin on Wednesday, November 4, when judges will consider an appeal against the proscription. That timing gave the demonstration a clear purpose beyond the day itself: to put public pressure on the legal process and to show that enforcement of the ban has not stopped dissent. Campaigners have argued that the ban criminalises ordinary protest, and a mass arrest days before the hearing dramatises that claim in a way a court filing cannot. At the same time, the timing risks the opposite reading: that protesters were deliberately provoking arrests to create a political moment, a criticism police and government supporters have often made.
The Ban at the Centre of the Dispute
How Proscription Works Under UK Law
Under British law, proscription places an organisation on a list of banned groups, and membership of or support for such a group becomes a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The ban on Palestine Action puts the group on a list that also includes Hamas and Hezbollah, a comparison that critics say is disproportionate for a protest movement and supporters say reflects the group’s methods. The offence at issue in the embassy arrests was not violence but expression: holding a placard or declaring support in public. That is why the case has become a test of free speech as much as of public order, because the law is being used against slogans and signs rather than against attacks.
From Elbit Actions to a Terrorism Designation
Palestine Action rose to prominence through direct-action campaigns against defence facilities, particularly sites linked to the Israeli defence company Elbit Systems, including break-ins and vandalism reported in coverage of the group. The British government proscribed the group in 2025, after a series of such operations, arguing that its activities crossed from protest into criminal damage and intimidation. Supporters of the group reject that characterisation, arguing that its targets were military supply chains linked to the war in Gaza and that its actions were a form of protest against arms production. The dispute over whether property damage aimed at a weapons supplier should be treated as terrorism is central to the legal challenge now before the Supreme Court.
The Legal Journey So Far
High Court, Court of Appeal, and What Comes Next
The ban has already travelled through several courts. The High Court ruled earlier in 2026 that the ban was unlawful and disproportionate, a decision that gave campaigners a significant victory. The government appealed, and the Court of Appeal ruled in June in the government’s favour, finding the proscription justified and proportionate, so the ban remained in force while the appeal continued. That reversal set up the Supreme Court hearing, which will consider whether the lower court’s reasoning or the appeal court’s reasoning should prevail. Until the Supreme Court rules, the ban remains enforceable, which is why police continued to arrest protesters on October 31 even though the legal question is still open.
What the Supreme Court Will Be Asked to Decide
The Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether proscribing Palestine Action, and criminalising public expressions of support for it, is a lawful and proportionate use of counter-terrorism powers. The case raises questions about how far the state can go in restricting speech in the name of security, and whether a group whose actions involved property damage can be treated in the same way as armed militant organisations. A ruling upholding the ban would entrench the current enforcement approach and could encourage similar proscriptions. A ruling against the ban would require the government to reconsider the designation and could affect how police handle future protests. Either way, the judgment is expected to set a precedent for public-order policing in Britain.
The Policing Operation in Detail
Dispersal Powers and the Embassy Grounds
Police used a Section 35 dispersal order across parts of central London, a power that allows officers to direct people to leave an area and to arrest those who refuse. The order covered the embassy grounds and surrounding streets from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturday, giving officers a broad tool to manage the gathering. Officers began making arrests shortly after 12:30 p.m., according to one timed account, and continued through the afternoon. The operation was led on the ground by Commander Adam Slonecki, who defended the police approach and described the gathering as an intentional violation of the law. Police said they were enforcing the law as it stands, not making a political judgment about the protest’s cause.
Who Was Arrested and What Police Said
Reports described many of those arrested as pensioners and older demonstrators, a detail that campaigners have highlighted to argue that the enforcement is sweeping up ordinary citizens rather than dangerous extremists. The Metropolitan Police said the majority of arrests were for expressing support for a proscribed organisation, with a smaller number for other offences. Police did not immediately publish a full breakdown of charges, ages or outcomes, and they warned that the total could rise as officers completed processing. The absence of a detailed breakdown has left campaigners and journalists relying on police updates and organiser estimates, a gap that matters because the final arrest total and the eventual charging decisions will shape how the day is remembered.
The Organisers and Their Argument
Defend Our Juries and Deliberate Defiance
Defend Our Juries, the group behind the demonstration, has organised a series of mass actions in which participants deliberately hold placards supporting Palestine Action, accepting arrest as a form of protest. The strategy is designed to overwhelm the enforcement system with numbers and to force a public debate about whether the law should be used this way. Organisers argue that a law that can produce hundreds of arrests for holding a sign is itself the problem, and that mass defiance exposes its breadth. Critics argue that deliberately breaking the law, even for a political cause, undermines respect for the courts, especially while a legal challenge is pending. The October 31 action followed that established pattern, with participants knowing the likely consequence before they arrived.
The Claim of More Than 4,000 Arrests
Defend Our Juries said the October 31 arrests brought the cumulative total of people detained for defying the ban to more than 4,000 since it took effect in 2025. That figure is the campaign group’s count, not an official police total, and it has been repeated in multiple reports of the embassy protest. If accurate, it would mean that enforcement of a single proscription has produced one of the largest waves of protest arrests in recent British history. The scale of the figure is central to the campaigners’ argument: they present it as evidence that the ban is being used routinely against protesters rather than sparingly against a dangerous organisation. Police and government sources have not published a competing cumulative total in the reports available, leaving the campaign figure as the most cited number.
Critics, Supporters and the Free-Speech Debate
Amnesty and MPs Raise Civil-Liberty Concerns
Amnesty International UK and other rights groups have criticised the mass arrests, arguing that they represent a disproportionate curtailment of protest and free expression. Labour MP John McDonnell argued that opposing a proscription does not automatically mean supporting the banned group or breaking the law, a distinction that goes to the heart of the legal dispute. Felix Jakens, Amnesty International UK’s head of communications, was among the voices cited in coverage questioning the enforcement approach. For these critics, the issue is not whether they agree with Palestine Action’s tactics, but whether the state should criminalise the act of expressing support for a group. They argue that such a power chills legitimate debate about Gaza, arms sales and British foreign policy.
The Government and Police Defence of Enforcement
The government and police have defended the ban and the arrests as a lawful application of counter-terrorism legislation. From their perspective, proscription is a tool designed to disrupt organisations that use criminal damage and intimidation, and public support for such a group cannot be separated from its activities. Police commanders have stressed that officers enforce the law as written by Parliament and interpreted by the courts, and that protesters who deliberately violate a proscription should expect arrest. Supporters of enforcement also argue that the existence of a pending Supreme Court appeal does not suspend the law: until a court strikes the ban down, it remains in force. That argument frames the October 31 arrests as routine law enforcement rather than political repression.
Questions Still Unanswered
What Happens After November 4
The most immediate unanswered question is what the Supreme Court will decide, and how quickly. The hearing is scheduled for November 4 and 5, but a judgment may follow weeks or months later, leaving the ban in force in the meantime. It is also unclear whether the court will consider appointing an independent monitor, ordering sworn testimony about discrepancies between records and testimony, or expanding discovery, steps that have been sought in related litigation. The outcome will determine whether future protests of this kind lead to arrest or are treated as lawful expression. Until then, organisers have signalled that mass actions are likely to continue, and police have signalled that enforcement will continue with them.
Whether Mass Arrests Change the Public Debate
A second open question is whether the strategy of mass arrest is changing public opinion or simply hardening positions. Campaigners hope that images of pensioners being arrested for holding placards will shift the debate and persuade the courts and the public that the ban has gone too far. Government supporters hope that consistent enforcement will deter further defiance and demonstrate that the law applies equally. What is clear is that the October 31 protest has added another 139 names to a growing tally, and another day of headlines ahead of a landmark hearing. The final arrest total, the charging decisions, the Edinburgh outcome, the Supreme Court’s reasoning and any government response all remain unconfirmed at the time of writing, and this report presents the figures and claims above only as reported and attributed, not as settled fact.
Unconfirmed: the final arrest total beyond the 139 reported by early evening, the official crowd size, any Edinburgh arrests, the charges and court outcomes for those detained, the Supreme Court’s decision and its timing, any change to the proscription, and any further government or police statement beyond those reported above.
