A British court has ordered the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians to pay £82,130 in legal costs to a British-Israeli IDF reservist after its attempted private prosecution collapsed under sweeping judicial criticism.

Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring ordered the ICJP to cover the reservist’s full criminal defense costs within three months. The award was assessed on the more favorable “indemnity” basis after the judge found what he described as culpable and profound breaches of the organization’s duty to present the court with all relevant information. He ruled that the amount was reasonable given the complex legal response the reservist had been forced to mount.

The ICJP had attempted to prosecute the unnamed reservist under Britain’s Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, arguing that he unlawfully joined a foreign military when he returned to Israel the day after the October 7 massacre and reported to his IDF unit.

The court rejected the case at its foundation. Goldspring ruled that Israel cannot be treated as a “foreign state” for an Israeli citizen serving in his own country’s armed forces. He also found that the man had not newly enlisted after October 7; he was already an IDF reservist and had simply returned to fulfill an existing military obligation. The Victorian-era law was designed to prevent British subjects from acting as mercenaries and compromising British neutrality, not to criminalize dual nationals serving in the military of their second country.

The judgment went considerably further than rejecting the ICJP’s legal interpretation. Goldspring described the application as legally flawed, evidentially deficient and procedurally defective. He concluded that its dominant motive was the advancement of a political and ideological agenda rather than the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal offense.

“The courts must not be used as a vehicle for political debate,” the judge wrote, finding that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

The court identified serious disclosure failures, including the ICJP’s failure to present repeated British government statements indicating that dual nationals may serve in the armed forces of their other country. The ruling also criticized undisclosed links between the organization, its former solicitors at Bindmans LLP and an expert witness whom the judge characterized as a campaigner and activist rather than an independent expert.

Goldspring declined to impose separate “wasted costs” penalties on Bindmans or the barristers involved, ruling that the demanding legal threshold for personally sanctioning the lawyers had not been met. Bindmans nevertheless disclosed that it had reported the matter to Britain’s Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The judge also formally expects the ICJP to attach complete copies of both adverse rulings to any future court applications it files in England and Wales. Although he concluded that he lacked the power to make that requirement a binding nationwide injunction, he warned that ignoring the expectation could invite severe judicial scrutiny.

The ICJP said it accepts the ruling and the costs order but maintained that the court did not determine whether crimes had been committed in Gaza. The organization said it would review its procedures while continuing to pursue allegations against Israelis through other legal channels. It previously claimed to have gathered material concerning more than 10 British nationals who served in the IDF.

The result represents a major defeat for a broader campaign seeking to expose ordinary IDF soldiers to prosecution abroad. It does not prevent legitimate criminal complaints supported by admissible evidence, but it sends a costly warning: British courts will not tolerate politically driven private prosecutions built on defective law, incomplete disclosure or activist testimony presented as independent expertise.