UK judges seek terrorist sentencing for Palestine activists convicted of bank damage

Five activists are facing sentencing as terrorists for breaking windows and throwing red paint at a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley last August. Brendon O'Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Humeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted of causing £212,000 in damage during a direct action protest targeting the bank because it held shares in Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons manufacturer. The jury found them guilty of criminal damage. What comes next is what has alarmed civil liberties advocates: the judge, Philip Parry, has signaled his intention to sentence them under terrorism legislation—a possibility that was never raised before trial, never presented to the jury, and never charged against them.

This move follows a precedent set just weeks earlier by another judge. Four other Palestine Action activists were convicted of property damage during a raid on an Elbit factory near Bristol and were subsequently deemed by Mr Justice Johnson to have committed offenses with a "terrorist connection." That judgment, which Johnson issued after the verdict rather than before it, has now become the template. Parry has attached Johnson's reasoning to his own case file and asked lawyers to submit arguments on whether the Barclays protest similarly qualifies as terrorism under the law.

The Crown Prosecution Service, which did not raise terrorism charges during the trial, is now arguing that the defendants should be sentenced as terrorists. According to reporting on the CPS position, prosecutors contend that evidence of a terrorist connection only emerged from admissions made by the defendants themselves—specifically their affiliation with Palestine Action and their description of the protest as part of a broader campaign against the bank. The bank protest occurred before Palestine Action was designated a terrorist organization and was not assessed by the Home Office as a terrorism incident at the time.

Mohammed Malik responded with sharp criticism. "The judge and the CPS are now seeking to sentence us as terrorists for red paint and a few splintered windows," he said. "This goes far beyond the charges before the court and raises serious concerns about the increasing use of counter-terrorism legislation to persecute political dissent." He pointed to the Filton precedent as evidence of a dangerous trajectory. Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, described the situation as "the floodgates flowing" from Johnson's decision.

The implications of a terrorism sentence are severe. If convicted under terrorism provisions, the five would be required to serve at least two-thirds of their prison term before becoming eligible for parole—significantly longer than standard sentencing. Upon release, they would face 15 years of terrorist notification requirements, meaning they must inform police of any new device, relationship, bank account, or address change. More strikingly, to obtain parole they would be expected to renounce their political views. The Filton activists, sentenced under the same framework, received lengthy custodial sentences and are now subject to these restrictions.

Human rights organizations have raised alarm. Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, said the case exposed "the deep flaws in the UK's counter-terror laws which capture activity most people would never consider terrorism." Labour MP John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, called the practice fundamentally unjust: "Trying direct-action protesters under criminal law but then sentencing them under terrorist legislation cannot be seen in any way as fair or just. It is a practice that seems to be specifically targeted to silence the voices of people speaking out against the genocide in Gaza."

The disparity in how similar offenses are treated has not gone unnoticed. Seven Extinction Rebellion activists who caused more than £100,000 in damage by breaking windows at Barclays' London headquarters in 2023 received suspended sentences. No terrorism connection was found in their case. The difference in outcome raises questions about whether the application of counter-terrorism law is being shaped by the political content of the protest rather than the nature of the act itself. Sentencing in the Burnley case is scheduled for September 4.