Five Palestine Action activists could be sentenced under terrorism legislation after being convicted of smashing windows and throwing red paint at a Barclays branch in Burnley during a protest linked to the bank’s investments.
Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, Mohammed Malik, 28, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were found guilty of causing £212,000 worth of damage during the demonstration in August 2024. The group said they targeted Barclays because it held shares in Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.
Although the case was prosecuted as criminal damage, Judge Philip Parry told both the prosecution and defence after last month’s verdicts that he intended to consider whether the offences had a terrorist connection. Neither the defendants nor the jury had previously been told this was a possibility.
The move follows a recent ruling involving four other Palestine Action activists who damaged Elbit Systems’ Filton factory near Bristol. In that case, Mr Justice Johnson ruled after their convictions that the offences had a terrorist connection, making them the first people convicted of property damage to receive that designation.
Judge Parry has since asked lawyers in the Burnley case to make submissions on whether the same approach should apply, attaching Justice Johnson’s earlier judgment to his request.
Mohammed Malik criticised the decision, saying prosecutors were now attempting to have the group sentenced as terrorists over what he described as red paint and broken windows. He argued that extending counter terrorism laws in this way went far beyond the charges brought before the court and risked criminalising political protest.
Palestine Action co founder Huda Ammori said the latest case showed the wider consequences of the Filton ruling, claiming it had opened the door to using terrorism legislation against direct action campaigners.
The Burnley protest took place before Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation. At the time, neither the Home Secretary nor government officials treated the incident as terrorism.
Despite that, the Crown Prosecution Service is now arguing that the offences should be considered to have a terrorist connection. It is understood prosecutors believe this became clear through evidence given during the trial, including the defendants’ admission that they were affiliated with Palestine Action and that the protest formed part of a broader campaign against Barclays.
Human rights organisations have also raised concerns. Liberty director Akiko Hart said the case highlighted what she described as serious flaws in the UK’s counter terrorism laws, arguing they are now being applied to conduct that most people would not consider terrorism.
Labour MP John McDonnell also criticised the approach, saying it was unfair for protesters to be tried under ordinary criminal law but then face sentencing under terrorism legislation. He argued the practice risked silencing people protesting against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
Critics have also pointed to differences in how other protest movements have been treated. In 2023, seven Extinction Rebellion activists who caused more than £100,000 worth of damage by breaking windows at Barclays’ London headquarters received suspended sentences, with no terrorist connection applied to their case.
The consequences of a terrorist designation are significant. The four activists sentenced in the Filton case received lengthy prison terms and will remain subject to terrorist notification requirements for 15 years after their release. These conditions include notifying police of changes to addresses, bank accounts, electronic devices and personal relationships. They must also serve at least two thirds of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole, unlike many other prisoners.
Amnesty International and Liberty have previously criticised the use of terrorism legislation in such cases, arguing it represents an inappropriate expansion of counter terrorism powers.
Barclays confirmed in October 2024 that it had sold all of its shares in Elbit Systems. The bank previously said those holdings were linked to client driven transactions and that it was neither an investor in nor a shareholder of the company in its own right.
The five activists are due to be sentenced on 4 September. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary declined to comment.