LONDON — Judge Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates' Court ruled on April 8, 2026, that the International Center of Justice for Palestinians' application for a private prosecution was fundamentally misconceived in law. The judge stated that the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 does not apply to dual nationals.

On June 19, 2026, Judge Goldspring ruled that the organization must pay legal costs to Soldier A, a dual British-Israeli citizen who served in a reserve IDF unit after October 7, 2023. The exact amount will be determined at a later date. The group applied for a summons against Soldier A on November 6, 2025, seeking charges under Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.

In his ruling, Judge Goldspring wrote that for a dual national, service in the armed forces of his other state of nationality is not foreign enlistment in any meaningful sense. He stated that Soldier A reported for reserve duty pursuant to existing liability under Israeli law rather than enlisting on October 8, 2023. Judge Goldspring dismissed the argument that Israel was at war with a state friendly to the UK, stating that the conflict in Gaza and Lebanon is with the UK-proscribed terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. He said the UK cannot be regarded as being at peace with proscribed terrorist organizations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and noted that the Royal Air Force participated in coalition efforts to defend Israel from aerial attack.

UK Lawyers for Israel intervened in the case, stating that the offense under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 could only be committed by a British subject. They also stated that under Section 35 of the British Nationality Act 1981, a British and/or Israeli citizen is not a British subject. Judge Goldspring stated that the organization relied solely on open-source material to establish British citizenship and that there was no proper evidential foundation for the assertion that Soldier A holds a British passport. He also stated that the UK's recognition of the state of Palestine cannot be applied with retrospective effect.

Judge Goldspring stated that the organization did not inform the court about statements regarding Soldier A's dual nationality in its application, case summary, or skeleton argument. He described this as a serious and inexcusable omission, stating that such withholding of material information constitutes a critical factor in determining an abuse of process. He stated he believed the group's dominant motive was the advancement of a political and ideological agenda rather than the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act. The court rejected attempts to penalize the organization's solicitors and barristers, stating they acted on instructions and were allowed to rely on what they were told.