The International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has been ordered to pay costs after failing to bring a private prosecution against a dual British-Israeli citizen (called Soldier A) who served in a reserve IDF unit after October 7, 2023. ICJP’s antics were also called “egregious” and “inexcusable” by the presiding judge.
ICJP describes itself as “an independent organisation of lawyers, politicians, and academics” concerned with the situation in Gaza. The attempted summons against Soldier A was the ICJP’s first private prosecution attempt.
ICJP made the application for the summons of Soldier A on November 6, 2025, with the aim that he be charged under Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. However, UK Lawyers for Israel intervened and pointed out that the offense could only be committed by “a British subject” and that, by virtue of Section 35 of the British Nationality Act 1981, a British and/or Israeli citizen is not a British subject. UKLFI also pointed out that successive UK Governments have also explicitly stated that the FEA does not apply to British dual nationals serving in the IDF.
Judge Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ultimately ruled on April 8, 2026 that ICJP’s application was “fundamentally misconceived in law,” as the FEA does not apply to dual nationals.
“For a dual national, service in the armed forces of his other state of nationality is not ‘foreign enlistment’ in any meaningful sense,” Goldspring wrote in his decision.
The case, which had no legal basis, still failed due to lack of admissible evidence
Goldspring also said that Soldier A did not actually “enlist” on October 8, 2023, but merely reported for reserve duty pursuant to his existing liability under Israeli law.
He also dismissed the ICJP’s argument that Israel was at war with a state friendly to the UK (the FEA requires that a foreign state be at war with a friendly state).
Goldspring then went on to say that, even if the ICJP’s legal case were sound, “which it is not,” the application would still fail due to lack of 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.”
He also said that the UK’s recognition of the state of Palestine cannot be applied with retrospective effect.
“If the [Soldier A] enlisted years before the recognition of Palestinian statehood, that recognition is irrelevant,” said Goldspring.
“The conflict in Gaza and Lebanon is, in reality, with the UK-proscribed terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The UK cannot be regarded as being ‘at peace’ with proscribed terrorist organisations (see Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000).”
“It is also of note that the Royal Air Force participated in coalition efforts to defend Israel from aerial attack. In light of this fact, the Applicant’s suppositions fall embarrassingly short of any evidential threshold.”
The judge expressed harsh words to the ICJP for omitting key details
Goldspring also expressed harsh words regarding the ICJP’s omission of the dual-nationality of Soldier A, and how this makes it permissible for him to serve in a foreign army.
“Despite this knowledge, the [ICJP] did not see fit to inform this Court of any of these statements in its application, its case summary, or its skeleton argument. This is a serious and inexcusable omission.”
He further condemned the presentation of the ICJP’s expert witness Dr. Mandy Turner as “independent,” when, in fact, she is active in social media activity and activism.
“The partisan and misleading nature of this expert evidence is more akin to propaganda than independent analysis. None of this was disclosed to the Court. The expert is, in my judgment, properly considered a campaigner and activist, not an independent expert,” he wrote.
Goldspring did not take these omissions lightly. He said they constitute “withholding of material information, which is a critical factor in determining an abuse of process.”
He more broadly concluded that he believed that ICJP’s “dominant motive” was not the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act, “but rather the advancement of a political and ideological agenda.”
“The courts must not be used as a vehicle for political debate or to ‘expose’ individuals for alleged wrongdoing which falls outside the scope of criminal law in order or to cause embarrassment to individuals or highlight a particular cause in a public forum, such as a courtroom. I fear that is close to being the case here.”
“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.”
Ordered to pay costs
Then, on June 19, Goldspring ruled that ICJP must pay legal costs to Soldier A, the exact amount of which will be decided later.
In this ruling, the judge said the failures of ICJP were “egregious.” He also said that honesty and full disclosure are “the foundation stone upon which such decisions are taken,” and that, in this case, the “foundation stone has crumbled.”
Notably, this is unusually strong language from a judge.
The court, however, rejected attempts to penalize the ICJP’s solicitors and barristers, saying they acted on instructions and were allowed to rely on what they were told, and that the evidence did not meet the very high legal threshold required to personally punish lawyers for misconduct.
A UKLFI spokesperson said, “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.”
“The court rejected ICJP’s case on every point and delivered a devastating criticism of the way in which the application was presented.”
UKLFI said the court’s findings that ICJP failed to disclose material information and breached its duty of candor were “particularly concerning,” and said the court’s decision to order costs against ICJP “reflects the seriousness of those failures.”
The Jerusalem Post reached out to the ICJP and Soldier A for comment.