UK judge orders pro-Palestine group to pay costs after failed IDF soldier prosecution

A UK judge has ordered the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) to pay legal costs after its attempt to bring a private prosecution against a dual British-Israeli citizen serving in the IDF failed. The presiding judge, Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates' Court, described the ICJP's actions as "egregious" and "inexcusable."

The ICJP, an organization of lawyers, politicians, and academics focused on the situation in Palestine, sought to prosecute the individual, referred to as Soldier A, under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. However, UK Lawyers for Israel intervened, arguing that the act only applies to "British subjects" and not dual nationals. They also noted that successive UK governments have stated the act does not apply to dual nationals serving in the IDF.

“

For a dual national, service in the armed forces of his other state of nationality is not 'foreign enlistment' in any meaningful sense.

Judge Goldspring ruled on April 8, 2026, that the ICJP's application was "fundamentally misconceived in law." He stated that for a dual national, serving in the armed forces of their other state of nationality is not "foreign enlistment" in any meaningful sense. The judge also pointed out that Soldier A reported for reserve duty, rather than enlisting, and that the case lacked admissible evidence.

Furthermore, the judge dismissed the ICJP's argument that Israel was at war with a state friendly to the UK, a condition required by the Foreign Enlistment Act. He also noted that the UK's recognition of the state of Palestine could not be applied retrospectively. The case was ultimately dismissed due to a lack of legal basis and admissible evidence.

“

The [ICJP] relies solely on open-source material to establish British citizenship. While the possession of a British passport is direct evidence of British nationality, there is no proper evidential foundation for the assertion that the Proposed Defendant holds such a passport. The material before me consists of photographs and assertions, but no admissible evidence capable of proof in a criminal court.