Full Breakdown
UK Court Rejects ICJP’s Attempt to Prosecute Dual National for IDF Service
6/22/2026, 11:43:46 PM
Court Dismisses Private Prosecution Attempt
Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled on 8 April 2026 that the International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) could not obtain a summons against a dual British-Israeli citizen—referred in the judgment as “Soldier A”—under Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (FEA). The judge described the application as “fundamentally misconceived in law” and ordered ICJP to pay costs, a further order issued on 19 June 2026.
Legal Framework and Precedent
The FEA criminalises enlistment by a British subject in the armed forces of a state at war with a nation friendly to the United Kingdom. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) intervened, citing Section 35 of the British Nationality Act 1981, which excludes dual British-Israeli citizens from the definition of “British subject.” Successive UK governments have also stated that the FEA does not apply to such dual nationals serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Key Actors
- International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP): An organisation of lawyers, politicians and academics that filed the private prosecution on 6 November 2025.
- Soldier A: A dual British-Israeli citizen who reported for reserve duty in the IDF after 8 October 2023, fulfilling an existing liability under Israeli law.
- Judge Paul Goldspring: Presiding magistrate who dismissed the case and issued the cost order.
- UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI): Legal group that challenged ICJP’s interpretation of the FEA and highlighted the dual-nationality issue.
Judicial Reasoning (Summarized)
Goldspring held that: (1) service by a dual national in the other state’s armed forces does not constitute “foreign enlistment”; (2) ICJP’s evidence relied solely on open-source material and lacked admissible proof of British citizenship; (3) the timing of Palestinian state recognition was irrelevant to the alleged offence; and (4) the application omitted material facts, constituting an abuse of process. The judge further noted that the UK’s recognition of the Palestinian state could not be applied retroactively and that the UK was not “at peace” with Hamas or Hezbollah, but that fact did not alter the legal analysis.
Official Statements & Responses
- Court Summary: The judgment concluded that the application was “legally flawed, evidentially deficient, and procedurally defective,” and that ICJP’s “dominant motive” appeared political rather than criminal-justice oriented.
- UKLFI Spokesperson: The organization described the ruling as “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,” and emphasized the seriousness of ICJP’s failure to disclose material information.
Criticism & Opposition
Goldspring harshly criticized ICJP for omitting the dual-nationality status of Soldier A, for presenting an activist as an “independent expert,” and for using the court to advance a political agenda. He labeled the omissions “egregious” and warned that courts must not become platforms for ideological campaigns.
Verbatim Quotes
- “For a dual national, service in the armed forces of his other state of nationality is not ‘foreign enlistment’ in any meaningful sense,” — Judge Paul Goldspring
- “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.” — Judge Paul Goldspring
- “If the [Soldier A] enlisted years before the recognition of Palestinian statehood, that recognition is irrelevant,” — Judge Paul Goldspring
- “This application is legally flawed, evidentially deficient, and procedurally defective. It constitutes an abuse of the process of this court, driven by an improper motive and facilitated by serious breaches of the duty of candor. The application for a summons is refused.” — Judge Paul Goldspring
- “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.” — UKLFI spokesperson
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
All cited sources present a consistent account of the judgment; no contradictory reporting was identified. The precise amount of costs to be awarded to Soldier A remains undecided.
What’s Next
The court will later determine the exact cost figure payable by ICJP. The decision sets a clear precedent that dual British-Israeli nationals are outside the scope of the FEA, potentially limiting future private prosecutions of similar nature.
