**
A group of five activists from Palestine Action could soon be sentenced under terrorism laws following a protest at a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley, Lancashire, which resulted in significant property damage. The defendants—Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Humeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70—were convicted of vandalising the bank in August 2024, believing it to be complicit in the arms trade through its investment in Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems. This case raises serious questions about the implications of applying counter-terrorism legislation to acts of political dissent.
Conviction Details and Context
The protest, which involved shattering windows and splattering red paint on the bank’s exterior, was part of a broader campaign against institutions perceived to support Israel’s military operations. The total cost of the damage was assessed at £212,000. Following the convictions, Judge Philip Parry indicated that he would consider a “terrorist connection” in the upcoming sentencing, a development that caught both the defence and the jury by surprise.
This ruling comes on the heels of a similar case in which four Palestine Action activists were also sentenced for vandalism at an Elbit factory in Filton, near Bristol. In that instance, the judge deemed their actions to have a “terrorist connection,” setting a troubling precedent that now appears to be influencing the proceedings against the Burnley activists.
Reactions from the Defendants and Advocacy Groups
Malik, one of the defendants, expressed deep concern over the potential sentencing, describing it as an alarming expansion of counter-terrorism laws to suppress legitimate political protest. “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,” he stated. Malik’s remarks underscore a growing unease among civil rights advocates who fear that the legal system is being weaponised against dissenters.
Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, echoed these sentiments, warning that the ruling could open the floodgates for further misuse of terrorism legislation against activists. She highlighted the chilling effect such a precedent could have on free speech and the right to protest.
Akiko Hart, Director of the human rights group Liberty, also weighed in, criticising the case as emblematic of the flaws inherent in the UK’s counter-terrorism framework. “This situation illustrates how the law can ensnare activities that most citizens would never equate with terrorism,” she remarked.
Political Implications and Comparisons
The political dimensions of this case are significant and have drawn responses from notable figures, including Labour MP John McDonnell. He condemned the juxtaposition of criminal law and terrorism legislation, arguing that it unfairly targets activists speaking out against the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. McDonnell’s comments reflect a broader concern that this legal approach is designed to silence dissenting voices.
Interestingly, similar actions taken by climate activists have not been categorised as terrorist acts. For instance, in 2023, seven Extinction Rebellion members received suspended sentences for causing over £100,000 worth of damage at Barclays’ London headquarters, highlighting an apparent disparity in how the legal system treats different forms of activism.
The Future of Protests and Legal Consequences
As the sentencing date of 4 September approaches, the implications of this case loom large. If the court decides to impose a terrorism classification, the defendants could face significantly longer prison terms and stringent post-release conditions, including a requirement to report any changes in personal circumstances to the authorities. This would represent a drastic departure from standard sentencing practices and raise further questions about the fairness of the legal process.
In a striking contrast, it was reported in October 2024 that Barclays had divested from Elbit Systems, claiming its previous investments were solely related to client transactions and did not signify an endorsement of the arms manufacturer. This revelation adds another layer of complexity to the case, as it suggests that the bank’s role in the arms trade may not be as direct as the activists alleged.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for activists and their ability to protest within the UK. By potentially categorising acts of political dissent as terrorism, the legal system risks stifling crucial voices in ongoing social and political debates. As public sentiment grows increasingly divided over issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the application of counter-terrorism laws to peaceful protests could set a dangerous precedent, fundamentally altering the landscape of civil liberties in Britain.
