Five members of the activist group Palestine Action are poised to be sentenced under terrorism legislation following their conviction for vandalising a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley, Lancashire. The defendants, aged between 28 and 70, caused extensive damage amounting to £212,000 during a protest in August 2024, aimed at drawing attention to Barclays’ financial ties with the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. This unprecedented move to classify their actions as terrorism has sparked fierce debate regarding the implications for political dissent in the UK.
The Incident and Charges
In August 2024, Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik, and Alma Yaniv targeted the Barclays branch in a direct action protest, breaking windows and splattering the building with red paint. Their actions were motivated by the bank’s investment in Elbit Systems, a firm known for its production of military equipment used in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Following a trial, the activists were convicted of causing severe property damage. However, what has raised eyebrows is the judge’s indication that he will consider a “terrorist connection” as part of the sentencing. This revelation came post-verdict, with Judge Philip Parry referencing a previous case involving Palestine Action activists that had been deemed terrorism-related, despite the jury or defendants being made aware of this possibility beforehand.
Controversy Surrounding Terrorism Classification
Malik expressed outrage over the potential for terrorism charges, stating, “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 and raises serious concerns about the increasing use of counter-terrorism legislation to persecute political dissent.” His comments encapsulate the fears that the legal system may be weaponised against activists engaging in non-violent protest.
Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, referred to the situation as a “floodgate” opened by a precedent set in a previous case. In that instance, four activists were sentenced under terrorism laws for damaging drones used by Israeli forces. This has led to accusations that the legal system is shifting to suppress dissenting voices, particularly those advocating for Palestinian rights.
The Broader Implications
Critics have pointed out the inconsistency in how different forms of protest are treated by the legal system. For instance, members of Extinction Rebellion received suspended sentences for similar acts of vandalism against Barclays in London in 2023, without facing terrorism charges. The disparity in treatment raises questions about the motivations behind the legal actions taken against Palestine Action activists, especially in light of the UK government’s current stance on political protests.
Akiko Hart, director of the human rights organisation Liberty, has labelled the situation as indicative of “deep flaws in the UK’s counter-terror laws,” which encompass activities that many would not traditionally associate with terrorism. Labour MP John McDonnell echoed this sentiment, arguing that subjecting protesters to terrorism laws undermines the principles of justice and fairness.
Future Sentencing and Reactions
The sentencing for the five activists is set for 4 September. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has argued that the defendants’ admissions during the trial, including their affiliation with Palestine Action and their stated objective of the protest, justify the consideration of terrorism charges. This move has drawn considerable backlash, with critics arguing it reflects a dangerous precedent for the treatment of political activists.
It’s notable that the bank in question, Barclays, reportedly divested from Elbit Systems in October 2024, claiming its previous shareholding was only related to client-driven transactions and not a reflection of its values.
Why it Matters
The potential sentencing of Palestine Action activists under terrorism laws represents a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over the boundaries of political protest in the UK. As the government continues to grapple with how to classify dissenting voices, the ramifications of this case could reverberate beyond the courtroom, influencing how future protests are perceived and prosecuted. It raises crucial questions about the balance between national security and the right to free expression, particularly in a climate where political activism is increasingly scrutinised. The outcome of this case may well set a precedent that could either fortify or undermine civil liberties in the face of rising political tensions.
