Five activists face being sentenced as terrorists for breaking windows and throwing red paint at a branch of Barclays Bank in 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 Burnley in August 2024.
They targeted the bank because it held shares in the Israeli weapons firm Elbit Systems. After last month’s verdicts, the judge, Philip Parry, told the prosecution and the defence he intended to consider a “terrorist connection” to the offending, despite neither the jury nor the defendants having previously been informed of the possibility.
Four other Palestine Action activists last month became the first defendants convicted of property damage whose offending - during a raid on Elbit’s Filton factory near Bristol - was deemed by Mr Justice Johnson post-conviction.
Parry attached Johnson’s judgment when asking lawyers for submissions on whether there was a terrorist connection in the case.
What have the defendants and their supporters said?
Malik said:
The judge and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] 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.
The attempt to now sentence us as terrorists demonstrates the extremely dangerous precedent set by Judge Johnson, who sentenced four Palestine Action protestors as terrorists for destroying Israeli quadcopter drones.
The Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said it was an example of “the floodgates flowing” from Johnson’s decision.
The bank protest took place before and was not assessed by the home secretary nor officials to be a terrorism incident.
How is the Crown Prosecution Service responding?
Responding to Parry, the CPS argued that the Barclays five should be sentenced as terrorists, despite prosecutors having not raised the possibility before or during the trial.
understands the CPS is arguing that the terrorist connection only came to light from admissions made by the defendants at trial, including relating to their affiliation to Palestine Action and that the protest was part of a wider campaign against Barclays.
What criticism has the case drawn?
The director of the human rights organisation Liberty, Akiko Hart, said the case further highlighted “the deep flaws in the UK’s counter-terror laws which capture activity most people would never consider terrorism”.
The 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 example, seven Extinction Rebellion protesters were for causing more than £100,000 of damage by breaking windows at Barclays’ London headquarters in 2023.
What happened in the Filton case?
In the Filton case, the activists received lengthy custodial sentences. They will also be subject to 15 years of terrorist notification requirements on release, which includes informing police of any new device, relationship, bank account or address.
Amnesty International and Liberty were among critics of the terrorist connection finding, describing it as a misuse of counter-terrorism powers.
A terrorist sentencing also means defendants’ serve at least two-thirds of their tariff in prison, much longer than is the norm. To obtain parole they must rescind their political views.
It was reported in October 2024 that Barclays had sold all its Elbit shares. The bank had previously said it held them only in relation to client driven transactions, being neither an investor nor shareholder in the arms company.
The sentencing in the Burnley case is scheduled for 4 September. The CPS and judiciary declined to comment.
