Key Takeaways
- Five Palestine Action activists convicted of causing £212,000 ($290,000) of damage to a Barclays branch in Burnley will not be sentenced under terrorism legislation.
- Judge Robert Altham ruled that the offence lacked a terrorist connection, despite the prosecution’s later attempt to invoke “terrorist connection” laws after the verdict.
- The activists welcomed the decision as a vindication of peaceful protest, while family members and supporters celebrated outside Preston Crown Court.
- The case highlights a controversial trend of applying terrorism‑related statutes to Palestine Action demonstrators, a practice critics say targets lawful dissent.
- Since the group’s proscription in July 2025, over 3,500 people—many elderly—have been arrested for expressing support, raising alarms among human‑rights organisations.
- Amnesty International UK and other rights groups urge the Labour government to lift the ban and stop misusing counter‑terror powers against direct‑action protesters.
Background of the Protest and Charges
In August 2024, five members of the direct‑action network Palestine Action entered a Barclays bank branch in Burnley, Lancashire, and caused damage estimated at £212,000 ($290,000) by smashing windows and spraying red paint. Their action was aimed at protesting the bank’s shareholdings in Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons manufacturer accused of supplying equipment used in the Gaza conflict. The activists were arrested and subsequently charged with criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. No terrorism‑related allegations were raised at the outset of the proceedings, and the group had not yet been designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government at the time of the offence.
Court Verdict and Sentencing Decision
The case proceeded to trial at Preston Crown Court, where a jury found Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik, and Alma Yaniv guilty of criminal damage in June 2025. Initially, the defendants faced the possibility of a terrorism‑linked sentence, which could have resulted in substantially longer prison terms. However, after the verdict, trial judge Philip Parry indicated he would examine whether the offence possessed a “terrorist connection.” Subsequently, Judge Robert Altham delivered a ruling that the damage, while serious, did not meet the threshold for terrorism sentencing. He emphasised that the activists’ conduct was motivated by political protest rather than an intent to advance a terrorist agenda, and therefore the appropriate sentencing framework remained that of ordinary criminal damage.
Reactions from Activists and Families
The ruling prompted an outpouring of relief and celebration among the defendants and their supporters. Outside the courtroom, scores of pro‑Palestine demonstrators erupted in cheers and chants, waving flags and banners. Mohammed Malik’s mother, Dove Malik, told Al Jazeera that the decision felt like “a victory for us, a victory for Palestine, a victory for protesting … We are on the right side of history.” In a joint statement, the five activists said they were “extremely relieved that the court has seen sense and decided not to sentence us as terrorists,” adding that they had never been informed during trial that a terrorism sentence was a possible outcome. Their lawyers echoed this sentiment, noting the surprise and concern that terrorism charges had been floated only after the guilty verdict.
Legal Context: Terrorism Connection and Proscription
Judge Parry’s post‑verdict consideration of a “terrorist connection” stems from provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000 that allow prosecutors to seek enhanced penalties when an offence is deemed to have a terrorist link, even if the primary charge is non‑terrorist. Leading criminal lawyer Raj Chada of Hodge Jones & Allen observed that such applications are exceedingly rare and, in his experience, have been used almost exclusively against Palestine Action activists. He pointed out that the law appears to be employed to target the act rather than the individual or group, a tactic that raises concerns about selective enforcement. Notably, four Palestine Action activists convicted of similar criminal damage at Elbit’s Filton site near Bristol were sentenced as terrorists nearly two years after their protest, establishing a precedent that the prosecution sought to replicate in the Burnley case.
Broader Impact on Protest Rights and Amnesty International Statement
The prosecution’s move has intensified debate over the UK’s approach to dissent. Since the government proscribed Palestine Action in July 2025—placing it on the same legal footing as al‑Qaeda and ISIL—over 3,500 individuals, many aged over 60, have been arrested for expressing support, often during mass sit‑ins in London’s Parliament Square holding signs such as “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Human‑rights organisations have denounced the ban as an illiberal overreach that chills legitimate protest. Kerry Moscogiuri, head of Amnesty International UK, responded to the Preston ruling by urging the Labour government to lift the proscription and halt the misuse of sweeping counter‑terror powers against direct‑action protesters. She stressed that the right to protest remains one of the most effective tools for holding leaders to account and warned that expanding terrorism laws to cover peaceful dissent undermines democratic freedoms.
Conclusion and Outlook
The Preston Crown Court decision not to sentence the five Palestine Action activists under terrorism laws marks a significant moment in the ongoing tension between security legislation and the right to protest in the United Kingdom. While the activists avoided the severe penalties associated with terrorism convictions, the case underscores a growing pattern wherein prosecutors explore terrorism‑related enhancements for acts of political vandalism. As the September 4 sentencing date approaches, the focus will likely shift to whether the judge will impose a standard criminal‑damage penalty or whether further legal challenges will arise concerning the applicability of terrorism statutes. Meanwhile, advocacy groups continue to press for legislative reforms that protect protest activities from being conflated with terrorism, aiming to ensure that expressions of political dissent—however disruptive—are met with proportionate, non‑terrorist legal responses.