Five activists in the UK face the prospect of being sentenced under terrorism-linked laws following a protest against a bank's ties to an Israeli defense firm.
A significant legal development is unfolding in Preston, where five activists associated with the Palestine Action movement are awaiting a judicial decision that could fundamentally alter their sentencing outcomes. The defendants—Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik, and Alma Yaniv—were previously convicted of causing significant criminal damage to a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley. The incident, which occurred in August 2024, resulted in approximately £212,000 in damages, with the group specifically targeting the institution due to its financial ties to the Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems.
As the sentencing date of September 4 approaches, the presiding judge, Philip Parry, has indicated that he will deliberate on whether to classify the criminal damage as having a “terrorist connection.” This potential reclassification is causing alarm among legal experts and civil liberties advocates, who argue that the application of such statutes to direct-action protesters is an unprecedented expansion of legislative power. The defendants were tried and convicted of standard criminal charges, with neither the jury nor the accused having any prior indication that terrorism-related sentencing guidelines would be introduced into the judicial process.
The legal community is closely monitoring the situation, with many practitioners expressing concern over the departure from established sentencing norms. Raj Chada, a prominent criminal defense solicitor, has highlighted the rarity of invoking terrorist connection laws in the context of protest-related criminal damage. According to Chada, while these provisions have existed for years, their recent application appears to be exclusively directed at members of Palestine Action, often in cases where the alleged offenses occurred before the group was officially proscribed as a terrorist organization.
This development mirrors a previous ruling from June, where activists involved in a separate action against an Elbit Systems site were sentenced under similar terrorism-linked frameworks. Critics argue that this systematic application suggests a targeted effort to label ideological dissent as domestic extremism. the court risks undermining the traditional boundaries of criminal justice, potentially creating a chilling effect on future civil disobedience and protest activities across the United Kingdom.
The potential for these defendants to be treated as terrorists has galvanized supporters and human rights organizations. The group Defend our Juries has been particularly vocal, characterizing the move as an extreme overreach. Supporters emphasize that the activists were motivated , rather than an intent to incite fear or violence against the public. The argument remains that acts of civil disobedience, even those causing property damage, should be adjudicated based on the specific crimes committed rather than through the lens of national security legislation.
Furthermore, the involvement of specific members of the judiciary has drawn intense scrutiny from activists. Concerns have been raised regarding the history of certain judges in handling environmental and social protest cases, with some advocacy groups questioning the impartiality of the process. As the court prepares for the upcoming hearing in Preston, the broader implications remain clear: the UK is navigating a difficult tension between the state's desire to maintain public order and the fundamental rights of citizens to engage in political protest. With thousands of individuals already arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action, the outcome of this case may set a definitive, and perhaps controversial, precedent for the handling of political dissent in the years to come.