UK Court Orders Pro-Palestinian Legal Group to Pay IDF Reservist’s Costs

A British court has ordered the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians to pay legal costs to a dual British-Israeli IDF reservist after rejecting the group’s attempt to privately prosecute him for serving in the Israeli military.

Judge Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled on June 19 that ICJP must pay costs to the soldier, identified only as “Soldier A.” The exact amount has not yet been set.

The ruling followed an earlier decision on April 8, when Goldspring rejected ICJP’s attempt to bring charges under Britain’s Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. The case was closely watched because it targeted a British-Israeli dual national who served in an IDF reserve unit after the October 7 Hamas attacks.

UK Lawyers for Israel, which intervened in the case, said the ruling confirmed that British-Israeli dual nationals are not breaking British law by serving in the IDF.

“The main judgment was a complete vindication of the position that British-Israeli dual nationals who serve in the IDF are not committing criminal offenses under the Foreign Enlistment Act,” a UKLFI spokesperson said.

ICJP, a pro-Palestinian legal group, had applied in November 2025 for a summons against Soldier A. The group sought to prosecute him under Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which restricts certain forms of enlistment in foreign forces.

Goldspring rejected the case, calling it “fundamentally misconceived in law.” He said the law did not apply to a dual national serving in the army of his other country of nationality.

“For a dual national, service in the armed forces of his other state of nationality is not ‘foreign enlistment’ in any meaningful sense,” the judge wrote.

The court also found that Soldier A did not enlist after October 7, but reported for reserve duty under an existing obligation in Israeli law.

Goldspring said the case would have failed even if ICJP’s legal argument had been sound. He said the group relied on open-source material and did not present admissible evidence capable of proving its claims in a criminal court.

“The material before me consists of photographs and assertions, but no admissible evidence capable of proof in a criminal court,” he wrote.

The judge also rejected ICJP’s argument that the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon met the requirements of the Foreign Enlistment Act. He said the conflict was not with a state friendly to Britain.

“The conflict in Gaza and Lebanon is, in reality, with the UK-proscribed terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah,” Goldspring wrote.

The court issued sharp criticism of ICJP’s handling of the case. Goldspring said the group failed to disclose key information about Soldier A’s dual nationality and previous British government statements saying that dual nationals may serve in the armed forces of their other country of citizenship.

“This is a serious and inexcusable omission,” the judge wrote.

The judge also criticized ICJP’s presentation of Dr. Mandy Turner as an independent expert witness, saying her record showed activism on the issue.

“The partisan and misleading nature of this expert evidence is more akin to propaganda than independent analysis,” he wrote.

In the June 19 costs ruling, Goldspring described ICJP’s failures as “egregious” and said honesty and full disclosure are the “foundation stone” of such court applications.

The court did not order ICJP’s solicitors or barristers to pay costs personally, saying the legal threshold for such a sanction had not been met.

ICJP said after the April ruling that it had brought the case in good faith to test whether existing British law could provide accountability for people serving in foreign armed forces. UKLFI said the court rejected ICJP’s case on every point and delivered a “devastating criticism” of how the application was presented.