A judge has ruled that five Palestine Action activists who vandalised a Barclays branch in Burnley will not be sentenced as terrorists, a decision that will likely lead to shorter jail terms for the group.
The five individuals, dubbed the 'Barclays five', were found guilty in June of causing damage exceeding £200,000. Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70, had targeted the bank’s branch in Lancashire in August 2024. Their actions included breaking windows and throwing red paint.
The group stated their protest was aimed at Barclays due to the bank holding shares in the Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems.
On Friday, Judge Altham, the recorder of Preston, determined that while the damage inflicted was substantial, it did not meet the high threshold required for a terrorist sentencing. He noted that the scale of the damage was not comparable to other attacks, nor was it directed at a sensitive property such as an arms company, which has been the target in some previous Palestine Action incidents.
All five activists are scheduled to be sentenced next month for criminal damage. However, the ruling means they will face reduced jail terms compared to what a terrorism sentencing would have entailed.
The consideration of a "terrorist connection" to the offending was initially raised by trial judge Philip Parry in June, following the activists' conviction. Judge Parry informed the prosecution and defence of his intention to explore this aspect after new information reportedly emerged during the trial. Neither the activists nor the jury, who delivered the guilty verdict for the criminal charges, were aware that the case would be considered under terrorism provisions until after their conviction.
During the hearings held at Preston Crown Court on Friday, legal representatives for the activists argued against a terrorism classification. They stated that four of the defendants, excluding Alma Yaniv, had admitted to being members of Palestine Action during the trial. However, the defence maintained that this was irrelevant to the terrorism consideration, as Palestine Action was not proscribed as a terrorist group until a year after the act of vandalism took place.
In a statement issued following Judge Altham’s ruling, the five activists expressed their relief. They said they were “extremely relieved that the court has seen sense,” but asserted that a terrorism sentencing “should never have been an option.” The group accused the state of “attempting to equate property damage to the Israeli war machine with terrorism.”
They further detailed the potential ramifications of such a sentence, explaining: “A terrorism sentence would not only aggravate our sentence significantly, it would mean we would be imprisoned as terrorists and subject to notification requirements for 15-plus years upon release.” These requirements, they added, would include mandatory notification to the police of any new address, bank account, phone number, email address, or relationship. Failure to comply, even accidentally, could lead to an additional five years in prison.
The activists claimed that the proscription of Palestine Action, the arrests of over 3,500 people under the Terrorism Act for holding signs, and the sentencing of direct action activists as terrorists, are "all tools being used by the state to protect the Israeli weapons industry and continue its role in the ongoing genocide in Gaza.” They added that the use of counter-terror powers against direct action for Palestine followed "extensive lobbying by the Israeli government, Elbit Systems, pro-Israel lobby groups and politicians with vested interests.”
In connection with the activists' protest motivation, it was reported in October 2024 that Barclays had sold all its shares in Elbit Systems. The bank had previously stated that any holdings in Elbit Systems were solely in relation to client-driven transactions, and that it was neither an investor nor a shareholder in the arms company itself.
Commenting on Judge Altham’s ruling, Kerry Moscogiuri, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, welcomed the decision. She stated: “The fact that the defendants in today’s case were not sentenced as terrorists is welcome. No one should be treated more harshly under the law because their crimes were part of a protest against genocide or any other issue, and the misuse of terrorism powers in this way should never have even been considered.”
Ms Moscogiuri further called for broader action, urging that the "proscription against Palestine Action lifted and an end to the misuse of sweeping counter-terror powers against direct action protesters." She concluded that the government "should begin the process of reversing the years of attacks on our right to protest, one of the most effective tools we have to hold our leaders to account.”
