Palestine Action Activists Face Terrorist Sentencing Over Barclays Bank Protest

Five Palestine Action activists face potential terrorism sentencing in the UK after being convicted of causing £212,000 in property damage to a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley during August 2024. The Crown Prosecution Service applied for a terrorist connection post-trial, mirroring a precedent set in Bristol.

Here is why that matters on the wider geopolitical stage. When domestic property damage transforms into a matter of counter-terrorism law, the boundary between political dissent and national security enforcement blurs. For international observers tracking civil liberties in Western democracies, this shift signals a profound transformation in how states police opposition to corporate ties with foreign military supply chains.

The Burnley Branch Raid and the Legal Pivot

The case centers on a direct action protest carried out in August 2024 at a Barclays Bank branch in Lancashire. Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70, were found guilty of smashing windows and throwing red paint at the building. According to court filings highlighted by Declassified UK, the protest was executed in the name of Palestine Action almost a year before the British government banned the group under terrorism laws.

Yet, the legal reality shifted dramatically after the jury delivered its verdicts. Judge Philip Parry invited submissions from both the prosecution and the defense on whether to apply a “terrorist connection” to the offense. Neither the jury nor the defendants had any prior warning that the trial could carry such severe statutory consequences. The Crown Prosecution Service seized on admissions made by the defendants during cross-examination regarding their affiliation with Palestine Action and the broader nationwide campaign targeting Barclays over its financial links to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer.

Echoes of the Filton Precedent

This unexpected legal maneuver follows a ruling handed down by Mr Justice Johnson regarding four other Palestine Action activists. Those defendants raided an Elbit factory in Filton, near Bristol, destroying Israeli quadcopter drones. Justice Johnson ruled post-conviction that their property damage carried a terrorist connection, marking the first time defendants convicted of property damage had their offending deemed by a judge post-conviction to have a “terrorist connection”.

Judge Parry subsequently attached Johnson’s judgment to the Burnley proceedings. If the court ultimately designates the Barclays protest as having a terrorist connection, the consequences for the defendants will be severe. Under UK law, terrorist sentencing mandates that individuals serve at least two-thirds of their custodial tariff behind bars. Furthermore, upon release, they will face 15 years of terrorist notification requirements—forcing them to inform police of any new bank accounts, electronic devices, residential addresses, or romantic relationships.

Photo: theguardian.com

As Hmeera Atiqnisar noted in interviews with Declassified UK, the trial concluded with defendants realizing they had effectively been tried under terrorism provisions without prior warning. Legal watchdogs have condemned the approach. Akiko Hart, the director of human rights organization Liberty, stated that the case highlights deep flaws in the UK counter-terror framework, noting it captures activity most people would never consider terrorism.

Comparative Overview of Palestine Action Direct Action Cases

Case Location	Target	Damage Cost	Key Legal Status
Burnley, Lancashire	Barclays Bank Branch	£212,000	CPS seeking terrorism sentencing post-trial
Filton, near Bristol	Elbit Systems Factory	Unspecified (Drones destroyed)	Deemed to have a “terrorist connection” by Justice Johnson

The Broader Clash Over Corporate Complicity and Dissent

The escalating legal crackdown reflects intense domestic friction over corporate involvement in the Middle East conflict. Activists have repeatedly targeted Barclays due to its provision of financial services and investments linked to Elbit Systems. Although reports from October 2024 indicated that Barclays had sold its Elbit shares—clarifying that it held them only for client-driven transactions rather than direct corporate investment—the campaign by Palestine Action had already expanded to dozens of branches nationwide.

Critics argue that applying counter-terrorism legislation to property damage sets a dangerous legal trap for political protesters. Labour MP and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell criticized the practice, stating that trying direct-action protesters under standard criminal law only to sentence them under terrorist legislation undermines fairness and aims to silence opposition to the war in Gaza. Meanwhile, human rights defenders contrast this approach with past environmental protests, noting that climate activists causing comparable financial damage at financial institutions have historically received suspended sentences rather than terrorism designations.

But there is a wider systemic question at stake. When courts condition early release from prison on the requirement that convicts rescind their political views, legal frameworks cross from penal enforcement into ideological policing. As this legal battle unfolds in British courtrooms, it establishes a high-stakes precedent for how democratic states manage domestic blowback from foreign conflicts.

How far should governments go when prosecuting direct action tied to international geopolitics? Share your thoughts below.