Palestine Action Activists Face Being Sentenced as Terrorists Over Bank Damage

The UK’s Palestine Action activists are facing potential sentencing as terrorists over a protest at a Barclays Bank branch in August 2024. The five defendants – Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Humeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik, and Alma Yaniv – were found guilty of causing £212,000 in damage during the protest against Barclays’ ties to the Israeli weapons firm Elbit Systems.

The judge’s decision to consider a “terrorist connection” post-trial, without prior notification to either the jury or the defense, raises serious questions about the judiciary’s willingness to circumvent due process and expand the definition of terrorism. This move is particularly striking given that Judge Johnson set a precedent in a recent case involving four Palestine Action activists. In that instance, the defendants were convicted of property damage at Elbit’s Filton factory near Bristol but deemed by the judge to have had a “terrorist connection.”

This judgment has paved the way for prosecutors to label protesters as terrorists, even when their actions are clearly not equivalent to violent extremism. The comparison with climate activists is stark: in 2023, seven Extinction Rebellion protesters were given suspended sentences for causing over £100,000 in damage at Barclays’ London headquarters – a similar level of destruction to that caused by the Palestine Action defendants. Yet these climate activists have not been deemed terrorists.

The selective application of counter-terrorism laws and the risk of politicizing justice are highlighted by this inconsistency. Labour MP John McDonnell has described this practice as an attempt to “silence the voices of people speaking out against the genocide in Gaza.” The human rights organization Liberty agrees, pointing out that the UK’s counter-terror laws are deeply flawed.

Director Akiko Hart notes that such legislation can capture activity most people would never consider terrorism. As the sentencing hearing approaches on 4 September, it remains to be seen whether the judge will uphold this dubious terrorist label. However, one thing is certain: if such a precedent is set, it could have far-reaching consequences for freedom of expression and assembly in the UK.

The government’s continued reliance on counter-terrorism laws to suppress dissenting voices raises concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the normalization of state repression. In an era where protests are increasingly being met with police violence and draconian sentencing, the UK needs a robust debate about its approach to counter-terrorism. Can we afford to sacrifice our fundamental rights in the name of security? Or will we continue down a path that chills free speech and silences those who dare to challenge the status quo?

The outcome in this case will send a powerful signal about the state’s willingness to defend democratic values or prioritize the interests of corporate power. If this precedent stands, it will be a dark day for British democracy.