Palestine Action Activists Face Terror Sentences for Barclays 2026

Palestine Action activists face being sentenced as terrorists for breaking windows and throwing red paint at a Barclays Bank branch, a case that raises urgent questions about the use of counter-terrorism laws against political dissent. The five activists—Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70—were found guilty of causing £212,000 of damage during a direct action protest in Burnley in August 2024. Their target was Barclays because it held shares in Israeli weapons firm Elbit Systems.

What Happened in the Barclays Bank Protest?

The protest took place before Palestine Action was officially banned as a terrorist group. At the time, the home secretary and officials did not assess the incident as terrorism. The activists broke windows and threw red paint inside the bank, causing significant damage. After the verdict, Judge Philip Parry told both prosecution and defence that he intended to consider a “terrorist connection” to the offending, even though neither the jury nor the defendants had been informed of this possibility earlier.

Why Is the Terrorist Connection Being Raised Now?

Judge Parry attached a judgment from Mr Justice Johnson, who had previously ruled that four other Palestine Action activists—convicted of property damage during a raid on Elbit’s Filton factory—had a “terrorist connection.” This post-conviction determination is unprecedented and has sparked concern among legal experts and civil liberties groups. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has argued that the Barclays five should be sentenced under terrorism legislation, despite the lack of prior assessment.

The Activists’ Response and the Precedent Concern

Mohammed Malik, one of the accused, stated: “The judge and the CPS are now seeking to sentence us as terrorists for red paint and a few splintered windows. This goes far beyond the charges before the court and raises serious concerns about the increasing use of counter-terrorism legislation to persecute political dissent.” He added, “The attempt to now sentence us as terrorists demonstrates the extremely dangerous precedent set by Judge Johnson, who sentenced four Palestine Action protestors as terrorists for destroying Israeli quadcopter drones.”

Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, called it an example of “the floodgates flowing” from Johnson’s decision. Legal observers note that this case could redefine how property damage in political protests is treated under UK law, potentially chilling future activism.

Comparison of the Two Cases

Key Takeaways

• Terror sentencing is being applied retroactively to political protest damage.
• The Barclays protest was not initially classified as terrorism by authorities.
• This case sets a dangerous precedent for using counter-terrorism laws against dissent.
• Activists face severe penalties, potentially including longer prison sentences.
• The CPS’s role is under scrutiny for expanding terrorism definitions.

What Does This Mean for Political Protest in the UK?

The decision to consider a terrorist connection in this case has broader implications. If sentenced as terrorists, the five activists could face up to 14 years in prison, compared to standard property damage penalties. This shift could deter individuals from participating in direct action, even when targeting companies involved in controversial activities.

Legal experts argue that the post-conviction reclassification violates the principle of legal certainty, as defendants were not aware of the potential terrorist label during trial. The case also highlights the growing intersection of national security law and social activism.

FAQ