Five Palestine Action activists face being sentenced as terrorists for breaking windows and throwing red paint at a branch of Barclays Bank in Burnley, Lancashire. Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70, were found guilty of causing £212,000 of damage during a direct action protest in August 2024. They targeted the bank because it held shares in the Israeli weapons firm Elbit Systems.
Judge Considers Terrorist Connection
After the verdicts last month, Judge Philip Parry informed the prosecution and defence of his intention to consider a “terrorist connection” to the offending, despite neither the jury nor defendants having been previously informed of this possibility. This follows a precedent set by Mr Justice Johnson, who last month deemed four other Palestine Action activists convicted of property damage during a raid on Elbit’s Filton factory near Bristol to have a “terrorist connection”. Parry attached Johnson’s judgment when seeking submissions on whether a terrorist connection exists in the Barclays case.
Defendants and Critics Respond
Mohammed Malik said: “The judge and the CPS are now seeking to sentence us as terrorists for red paint and a few splintered windows. 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.” Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori described it as “the floodgates flowing” from Johnson’s decision. The bank protest occurred before Palestine Action was banned as a terrorist group and was not assessed by the home secretary or officials as a terrorism incident.
CPS Argues for Terror Sentencing
In response to Parry, the Crown Prosecution Service argued that the Barclays five should be sentenced as terrorists, despite prosecutors not raising the possibility before or during the trial. The Guardian understands the CPS contends the terrorist connection arose from admissions made by defendants at trial, including their affiliation to Palestine Action and that the protest was part of a wider campaign against Barclays. The director of Liberty, Akiko Hart, said the case highlights “the deep flaws in the UK’s counter-terror laws which capture activity most people would never consider terrorism”.
Political and Legal Reactions
Labour MP and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: “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.” Similar offending by climate activists has not been deemed to have a terrorist connection; for instance, seven Extinction Rebellion protesters received suspended sentences for causing over £100,000 damage at Barclays’ London headquarters in 2023. In the Filton case, activists received lengthy custodial sentences and will face 15 years of terrorist notification requirements on release, including informing police of new devices, relationships, bank accounts, or addresses. Amnesty International and Liberty criticized the terrorist connection finding as a misuse of counter-terrorism powers.
Sentencing Implications and Barclays Response
A terrorist sentencing means defendants serve at least two-thirds of their tariff in prison, longer than the norm, and must rescind their political views to obtain parole. It was reported in October 2024 that Barclays had sold all its Elbit shares, having previously stated it held them only for client-driven transactions and was neither an investor nor shareholder in the arms company. Sentencing in the Burnley case is scheduled for 4 September. The CPS and judiciary declined to comment.
