A U.K. judge ruled Friday that the damage protesters caused at a bank branch was not enough to merit terrorism sentencing, Dania Akkad reports. Sentencing is on Sept. 4.
By Dania Akkad
Declassified UK
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.
[See: Craig Murray: UN Censures UK Abuse of 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.
? Judge rules Barclays vandalism activists will not face terrorism sentencing
Five Palestine Action activists convicted of damaging a Barclays branch in Burnley will not be sentenced under terrorism provisions, a judge ruled.
Brendon O’Hagan (28), Amanda Kelly (31), Hmeera… pic.twitter.com/CUDfbrsMCH— NewsTongue (@NewsTongueX) August 21, 2026
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 carried 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 U.K.’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 Sept. 4.
Dania Akkad is an investigative journalist. She has won awards for her reporting on women’s rights in the Middle East, Saudi Arabian dissidents and California’s lettuce industry. She started her career covering crime and agribusiness at daily newspapers in California, and then reported from Syria as a freelance journalist before the war, including investigating the 2005 suicide bombing in Amman that killed members of her family. She served most recently as senior investigations editor at Middle East Eye.
This article is from Declassified UK.
Views expressed in this article and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Please Donate to
CN’s Summer
Fund Drive!
Facts Only
* Five activists who protested at a Barclays Bank branch will not be sentenced as terrorists.
* A U.K. judge ruled the damage caused by the August 2024 direct-action protest did not meet the statutory measures of "serious damage" required under the Terrorism Act.
* The defendants were convicted of criminal damage in June over the protest, which resulted in £212,805 worth of damage.
* The activists were Brenda O’Hagan (28), Amanda Kelly (31), Mohammed Malik (28), Hmeera Atiqnisar (31), and Alma Yaniv (70).
* The protest occurred at a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley in August 2024.
* The prosecution acknowledged that Barclays provided investments and loans to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms firm, at the time of the protest.
* The action was carried out in the name of Palestine Action before the group was banned under terrorism laws.
* The presiding judge intended to consider a "terrorist connection" when sentencing but did not apply it.
* The five activists are scheduled to be sentenced on September 4.
Executive Summary
A U.K. judge ruled that the damage caused by five activists during a direct-action protest at a Barclays Bank branch was not sufficient to warrant terrorism sentencing. The judge noted the damage was "significant" but was not satisfied that it met the statutory threshold of "serious damage" required under the Terrorism Act. The five defendants, who were convicted of criminal damage over the protest, are scheduled to be sentenced on September 4th.
The context involves an August 2024 protest in Burnley where activists broke windows and threw paint. The prosecution acknowledged that at the time of the protest, Barclays provided investments and loans to Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms firm, which subsequently sold its shares two months later. The action was undertaken in the name of Palestine Action, nearly a year before the group was banned under terrorism laws. The presiding judge intended to consider a "terrorist connection" when sentencing but ultimately ruled against applying it based on the level of damage.
The ruling followed a previous landmark decision where four Palestine Action activists were sentenced as terrorists for criminal damage at an Elbit Systems site, which human rights groups viewed as a potential misuse of counter-terrorism powers. Defendants and supporters expressed relief but also highlighted concerns that applying a terrorism connection could have led to significantly harsher sentences.
Full Take
The decision highlights a critical tension between the legal framework designed for counter-terrorism and the principles of civil protest and property damage. The shift in judicial focus from whether the act itself qualifies as terrorism to assessing the statutory threshold of "serious damage" reveals a specific constraint placed on the application of terrorism legislation. This procedural nuance is vital because it directly impacts the potential severity of sentences, which human rights advocates argued could set a dangerous precedent regarding the use of counter-terrorism powers against direct action.
The pattern observed involves the legal system calibrating its response to the gravity of the act—moving from an initial, high-stakes classification (terrorism) to a more measurable assessment (serious damage). This calibration suggests a resistance to applying the most severe penalties unless a clear nexus with terrorism is established beyond mere criminal damage. The underlying implication for agency is that the very definition and application of terrorism law can be manipulated to either suppress dissent or, as seen here, moderate punitive outcomes.
The tension between the activists’ view of their actions as silencing immediate existential threats versus the legal system's focus on statutory measures forces an examination of where public safety mandates intersect with fundamental rights to protest. The absence of a "terrorism connection" in this instance, despite the context of arms deals, signals a boundary that must be continuously scrutinized for its effect on future activism and civil liberties.
Bridge Questions: If the focus is strictly on mitigating punishment, what criteria should courts use to determine when a protest against geopolitical actions crosses the threshold into terrorism, independent of property damage amounts? How does the right to protest interact with the state’s duty to safeguard public safety in contexts involving international arms flows? What is the effect on legal certainty when potential terrorist connections are deliberately withheld from juries and defendants?
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be a human-written journalistic report synthesizing a specific court ruling with the context of activist action, employing varied tones appropriate for conveying both factual legal developments and socio-political impact.