Palestine Action ‘Barclays five’ will not be sentenced as terrorists

Five Palestine Action Activists Spared Terrorist Sentencing After Barclays Bank Vandalism Case

Wanderstayfinder.com – A judge at Preston Crown Court has determined that five members of the direct-action group Palestine Action will not receive terrorist sentences for their role in damaging a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley, Lancashire. The ruling, handed down on Friday by Judge Altham, the recorder of Preston, means the activists will face shorter prison terms next month when they are formally sentenced for criminal damage.

The Incident and the Trial

The case traces back to August 2024, when the five individuals broke windows and hurled red paint at a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley. The act of vandalism was directed at the bank because it held shares in Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence contractor. The resulting damage was valued at more than £200,000.

The defendants — Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70 — were convicted in June of causing that level of property damage. At the conclusion of the trial, judge Philip Parry indicated to both prosecution and defence that he intended to examine whether a “terrorist connection” existed between the offence and the broader Palestine Action campaign. According to court proceedings, new information had emerged during the trial that prompted this additional consideration. Neither the defendants nor the jury had been informed beforehand that the case might be treated as a terrorism matter.

Judge Altham’s Reasoning

In his ruling, Judge Altham acknowledged that the financial damage was considerable. However, he concluded that the incident did not satisfy the elevated threshold required for a terrorist sentencing. Specifically, the attack was not comparable in scale to other Palestine Action incidents, nor was it directed at a particularly sensitive target such as an arms manufacturer itself. Because neither criterion was met, the judge determined that treating the offence as terrorism would be disproportionate.

Legal representatives for the four younger defendants — all except Yaniv — had told the court during the trial that their clients were members of Palestine Action. They argued this fact was immaterial to the sentencing question, because the organisation had not been formally proscribed as a terrorist group until roughly a year after the Burnley vandalism took place.

The Activists’ Response

In a joint statement issued following the ruling, the five expressed relief while simultaneously criticising the process. They said:

“We are extremely relieved that the court has seen sense, but a terrorism sentencing should never have been an option. The state is attempting to equate property damage to the Israeli war machine with terrorism.”

They elaborated on the practical consequences a terrorist designation would have carried:

“A terrorism sentence would not only aggravate our sentence significantly, it would mean we would be imprisoned as terrorists and subject to notification requirements for 15-plus years upon release. Those requirements include notifying police of any new address, bank account, phone number, email address, relationship and more. If we failed to do so, even by accident, we would face an additional five years in prison.”

The statement went further, framing the proscription of Palestine Action and the broader use of counter-terror legislation within a political context:

“The proscription of Palestine Action, the arrests of over 3,500 people under the Terrorism Act for holding signs and the sentencing of direct action activists as terrorists, are all tools being used by the state to protect the Israeli weapons industry and continue its role in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The use of counter-terror powers against direct action for Palestine came after extensive lobbying by the Israeli government, Elbit Systems, pro-Israel lobby groups and politicians with vested interests.”

Barclays and Elbit Systems

The commercial backdrop to the case shifted in October 2024, when Barclays confirmed it had divested all of its Elbit Systems shares. The bank had previously maintained that it held those positions solely in connection with client-driven transactions and was neither an investor nor a shareholder in the defence firm. That explanation, however, did not prevent the activists from selecting the Burnley branch as their target.

Amnesty International’s Reaction

Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, welcomed the judge’s decision while pressing for wider reform of counter-terror powers as applied to protest activity.

“The fact that the defendants in today’s case were not sentenced as terrorists is welcome. No one should be treated more harshly under the law because their crimes were part of a protest against genocide or any other issue, and the misuse of terrorism powers in this way should never have even been considered.”

Moscogiuri called for the proscription of Palestine Action to be reversed and for what she described as the misuse of sweeping counter-terror powers against direct-action protesters to end.

“The government should begin the process of reversing the years of attacks on our right to protest, one of the most effective tools we have to hold our leaders to account.”

Broader Implications

The ruling arrives amid a sustained debate in the United Kingdom over the boundaries of counter-terrorism legislation and its application to non-violent protest. Since Palestine Action was proscribed, thousands of individuals have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for activities as minor as holding placards. The Burnley case became a test of whether property damage carried out in the name of a proscribed organisation automatically triggers the enhanced sentencing regime reserved for terrorism offences. Judge Altham’s determination that it does not — absent additional aggravating factors such as scale or target sensitivity — sets a practical marker for how courts will weigh similar cases going forward. The five defendants remain scheduled for sentencing next month on the criminal damage charges alone, with the expectation of reduced custodial terms compared with what a terrorist designation would have imposed.