The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has been ordered to pay more than £82,000 in legal costs after its failed attempt to prosecute a British-Israeli man for serving in the IDF.
Westminster Magistrates' Court has ordered the campaign group to pay £82,130 to the man, known as Soldier A, after Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring threw out the case, saying it was legally baseless and politically motivated.
The order followed Goldspring's scathing judgment earlier this year in which he dismissed the ICJP's private prosecution as “fundamentally misconceived in law”, “egregious” and “an abuse of the process of this court”.
The group had sought to prosecute Soldier A under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, arguing that by returning to Israel following the October 7 Hamas attacks to serve in the IDF reserve forces he had committed a criminal offence.
However, the judge ruled that the legislation did not apply to dual nationals serving in the armed forces of their other country of nationality, meaning the prosecution had no legal foundation.
In his latest ruling on costs, Goldspring said the ICJP should pay Soldier A's legal fees in full because the case had been pursued amid “culpable, profound breaches of the fundamental duty of candour”.
He concluded that the £82,130 bill was “entirely reasonable and proportionate given the complexity of the response forced upon Soldier A.”
The judge said the organisation had subsequently acknowledged what he described as "systemic failures of candour” and had apologised both to the court and to Soldier A for failing to meet its obligations of honesty and openness during the proceedings.
Speaking after the ruling, Soldier A described the decision as an “incredibly strong win.
“It really shows that justice can prevail and that this judge saw through the games, the political meddling that was trying to be done here,” he said, adding that the outcome brought “a great end to a long and stressful saga.”
The ruling followed Goldspring's earlier judgment, in which he found that the ICJP had attempted to use the criminal courts as “a platform for political posturing” rather than pursuing justice.
The judge ruled that the organisation's “dominant motive” was “the advancement of a political and ideological agenda” and described the proceedings as “vexatious”.
He also found “profound and serious” breaches of the duty of candour, criticising the group for failing to properly present the government's longstanding position that British-Israeli dual nationals are permitted to serve in the IDF.
The court further criticised the independence of an expert witness relied upon by the ICJP, describing her evidence as “partisan and misleading” and more akin to “propaganda” than impartial expert analysis.
ICJP applied for a summons under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. The court declined to issue it and has now made a costs order. We accept the ruling.
— ICJP (@ICJPalestine) July 14, 2026
What the ruling is not: it is not a finding on whether crimes were committed in Gaza, nor is it a determination of the evidence… pic.twitter.com/CqLJxc0nOl
The ICJP accepted the ruling, stating on X this week: “Private prosecutions are a lawful and long-established route to accountability where public authorities do not act. Testing that route carries risk, risk which doesn’t always deliver the results we seek. But we will continue to pursue accountability for grave international crimes through every lawful avenue available.
“This ruling is not a verdict on the underlying allegations. Those who present it as so have failed to understand the court’s reasoning.
“We are carefully reviewing the judgment and considering our position in relation to any future action under the Foreign Enlistment Act. As we do after any significant case, we will review our own processes to ensure our work continues to meet the highest professional standards.
“This ruling marks the end of one legal case, not the pursuit of accountability.”
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.