Five activists who broke windows and threw red paint at a Barclays Bank branch in protest over Israel’s genocide in Gaza will not be sentenced as terrorists, a judge has ruled.
Judge Robert Altham told a packed room at Preston Crown Court on Friday that the damage the activists caused with their August 2024 direct-action protest in Burnley was “significant”.
However, Altham said he was “not satisfied” that the damage met the statutory measures of “serious damage” required under the terrorism act.
Visibly relieved, the defendants filed out of the tense courtroom to a gathering of family and friends who cheered and clapped. “Thank God,” one said, hugging a friend.
Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Mohammed Malik, 28, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted of criminal damage this June over the August 2024 protest which caused £212,805 worth of damage.
In the agreed facts of the case, the prosecution’s lawyers acknowledged that, at the time of the protest, Barclays provided investments and loans to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms firm.
Two months later, it was reported that Barclays had sold all its Elbit shares.
The action was carried out in the name of Palestine Action almost a year before the group was banned under terrorism laws, and before it was illegal to be a member or supporter of the group.
It was only after the trial concluded that the presiding judge, Philip Parry, said he intended to consider whether to apply a “terrorist connection” when sentencing the defendants.
This came after the landmark decision days earlier to sentence four Palestine Action activists convicted of criminal damage as terrorists over their own direct action protest at an Elbit Systems site in Filton near Bristol.
It was the first time in British legal history that direct-action protesters convicted of criminal damage were sentenced as terrorists, a move human rights groups warned was a misuse of counter-terrorism powers.
‘Deep flaws’
Defendants and supporters said they feared the earlier decision had set a dangerous precedent.
If a terrorism connection was applied in their case, they could have faced lengthy prison sentences and treatment as terrorists for decades following their release.
But after the ruling which followed a two-hour hearing, the five activists celebrated with around 200 supporters who beat drums and carryied placards outside. Trucks, buses and cars passed by, honking support.
Addressing the crowd, Atiqnisar said that, while she was relieved by the ruling, she had not sought victory in the courtroom.
“We are not victorious in the court rooms of a state that is protecting and sustaining the most monstrous entity in modern history and its biggest weapons supplier,” she told the crowd.
“We are victorious when we silence the drones before they occupy the skies of Gaza and before they turn Palestinian men, women and children into pieces.”
Ruth Ehrlich, director of external relations at rights group Liberty, welcomed the news, but said the fact that “a terror connection could even be considered highlights deep flaws in the UK’s laws”.
She said the consideration alone is likely to have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to exercise their right to protest and stand up for what they believe in.
“What makes this case all the more shocking is that the jury and defendants were unaware that the terrorism connection could be applied after the verdict had been reached,” she said.
She called for an urgent update to the current definition of terrorism “to enable current and future governments to uphold their duty to safeguard the public, whilst protecting people’s rights and preventing overreach”.
The five are scheduled to be sentenced on 4 September.
Facts Only
* Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Mohammed Malik, Hmeera Atiqnisar, and Alma Yaniv were convicted of criminal damage in June.
* The convictions stem from an August 2024 protest at a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley.
* The protest involved breaking windows and throwing red paint.
* The damage caused by the action totaled £212,805.
* Judge Robert Altham ruled the defendants will not be sentenced as terrorists.
* The ruling was based on the finding that the damage did not meet the statutory definition of "serious damage" required by the terrorism act.
* The action was carried out in the name of Palestine Action.
* Barclays provided investments and loans to Elbit Systems at the time of the protest.
* Barclays sold all Elbit shares two months after the protest.
* The protest occurred before Palestine Action was banned under terrorism laws.
* Sentencing is scheduled for 4 September.
Executive Summary
Five activists convicted of criminal damage following a protest at a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley will not face sentencing under terrorism laws. While Judge Robert Altham acknowledged the damage caused was "significant," totaling over £212,000, he ruled it did not meet the legal threshold of "serious damage" necessary to apply a terrorist connection. The protest targeted Barclays due to its financial ties to Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms firm; Barclays subsequently divested from Elbit shortly after the event.
The ruling follows a precedent where other Palestine Action activists were sentenced as terrorists for similar actions at an Elbit site. This divergence in legal application has prompted criticism from human rights organizations, such as Liberty, who argue that the mere consideration of terrorism charges for direct-action protesters indicates systemic flaws in UK law and may create a chilling effect on the right to protest. The defendants maintain that their goal is the cessation of weapons supplies to Gaza, rather than legal victory.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that of a judicial system struggling to calibrate the boundary between civil disobedience and terrorism in a highly polarized geopolitical climate. It highlights a critical legal tension: when does property damage cross the threshold into "serious damage" sufficient to trigger counter-terrorism statutes?
The narrative relies on a framing of "legal precariousness," emphasizing the psychological relief of the defendants and the warnings of human rights lawyers to signal that the state is overreaching. By juxtaposing this ruling with the previous "landmark" conviction of other activists, the situation is presented as a volatile legal landscape where the definition of terrorism is subject to judicial interpretation rather than clear, static boundaries.
Patterns detected: none
The root cause is a paradigm shift in how Western states manage "direct action." Traditionally, property damage for political goals was handled as criminal mischief; the shift toward terrorism designations suggests a move toward treating the *intent* and *affiliation* of the actor as more significant than the *physical result* of the act. This echoes historical patterns of expanding security state definitions to encompass dissent.
The implication is a potential erosion of the distinction between violent terrorism and non-violent (though illegal) political sabotage. If "terrorist connection" becomes a discretionary tool for sentencing, the cost of protest rises from a fine or short jail term to lifelong stigmatization and state surveillance.
Bridge Questions:
1. What specific quantitative or qualitative metrics distinguish "significant" damage from "serious" damage under the UK Terrorism Act?
2. How does the timing of a group's legal banning affect the retroactive application of terrorism sentencing for actions taken prior to that ban?
3. Would the legal outcome differ if the target were a government building rather than a private financial institution?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated influence campaign would likely strip the specific legal findings regarding "serious damage" and frame the case entirely as a "war on protesters" to incite broader civil unrest. The current account remains anchored in the court's specific statutory reasoning, avoiding such structural alignment.