The short version
- Five activists convicted of damaging a Barclays branch will receive shorter sentences after a judge ruled the act did not constitute terrorism.
- The ruling distinguishes this case from attacks on sensitive sites like arms manufacturers, noting the damage was substantial but not of a scale warranting terror classification.
- Critics and rights groups argue that applying counter-terror laws to property damage undermines protest rights and serves political interests rather than public safety.
A British judge has ruled that five activists convicted of vandalizing a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley will not be sentenced under terrorism legislation. The decision, delivered by Recorder Altham at Preston Crown Court, means the individuals will face standard criminal damage penalties rather than the significantly harsher terms associated with terror offenses. This ruling concludes a contentious legal phase that began after the group was found guilty in June of causing over £200,000 in damages during an August 2024 protest.
The five defendants, known collectively as the Barclays Five, include Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik, and Alma Yaniv. Their actions involved breaking windows and throwing red paint at the Lancashire branch. The protest was directed at Barclays due to its reported holdings in Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense contractor. While the financial damage was considerable, Judge Altham determined that the incident lacked the specific characteristics required for a terrorism sentencing. Specifically, the court noted that the attack did not target a sensitive property such as an arms facility and did not match the scale of other incidents previously classified as terrorist acts by the group Palestine Action.
The path to this ruling was marked by procedural controversy. During the original trial, Judge Philip Parry indicated he would consider a terrorist connection to the offenses, citing new information that emerged during proceedings. Neither the defense nor the jury was aware that terrorism charges were under consideration until after the guilty verdict for criminal damage was reached. Legal representatives for the activists argued that even though four of the five admitted to membership in Palestine Action, this affiliation was legally irrelevant at the time of the offense. The group had not been proscribed as a terrorist organization until a year after the vandalism occurred.
The distinction between criminal damage and terrorism carries profound practical consequences for the defendants. A terrorism conviction would have resulted in substantially longer prison terms and subjected the individuals to notification requirements for more than fifteen years after release. These obligations include reporting changes in address, bank accounts, phone numbers, email addresses, and personal relationships to police authorities. Failure to comply with these rules, even inadvertently, could trigger an additional five-year prison sentence. By ruling out the terrorism classification, the court has effectively shielded the activists from this extensive post-release surveillance regime.
Following the decision, the five activists issued a statement expressing relief that the court had rejected the terrorism framing. They maintained that equating property damage with terrorism was inappropriate and argued that such legal strategies are designed to protect the Israeli weapons industry. The group asserted that counter-terror powers have been misused against direct action protesters following lobbying efforts by the Israeli government, Elbit Systems, and pro-Israel political groups. They characterized these measures as tools to suppress opposition to military actions in Gaza.
Human rights organizations have welcomed the judicial outcome while calling for broader legal reforms. Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, stated that no one should face harsher legal treatment simply because their crimes were part of a protest against genocide or other political issues. The organization argued that the misuse of terrorism powers in this context should never have been considered. Amnesty International is urging the government to lift the proscription on Palestine Action and end the application of sweeping counter-terror laws against direct action protesters, viewing these rights as essential for holding leaders accountable.
The financial context of the protest has also shifted since the events took place. Reports from October 2024 indicated that Barclays had sold all its shares in Elbit Systems. The bank had previously clarified that it held these shares only in relation to client-driven transactions, denying any role as an active investor or shareholder in the arms company. Despite this divestment, the legal proceedings continued based on the circumstances at the time of the protest.
Sentencing for the five individuals is scheduled for next month. While they will still serve time for criminal damage, the absence of a terrorism designation ensures their sentences will be shorter than they would have been under counter-terror statutes. This case highlights the ongoing tension in the UK between maintaining public order and protecting the right to protest, particularly when demonstrations involve significant property damage but do not involve violence against persons or critical infrastructure.
The ruling sets a notable precedent for how courts assess the threshold for terrorism in cases involving environmental or political activism. By emphasizing the nature of the target and the scale of the attack, Judge Altham drew a line between serious criminal damage and acts intended to intimidate populations or compel governments through violence. As other similar cases proceed, this decision may influence how prosecutors approach charges against activists involved in high-profile property offenses.
Legal experts note that the case underscores the complexities of applying terrorism laws to non-violent but destructive protests. The requirement for a 'terrorist connection' involves assessing intent and impact beyond mere financial loss. In this instance, the court’s focus on the lack of sensitivity regarding the target location and the comparative scale of damage provided a basis for rejecting the more severe classification. The outcome reflects a judicial effort to align sentencing with the specific facts of the case rather than broader political narratives.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Palestine Action ‘Barclays five’ will not be sentenced as terrorists
