Five Palestine Action activists are facing the delightful prospect of being sentenced as terrorists for the heinous crime of breaking windows and throwing red paint at a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley. The group - Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70 - were found guilty of causing £212,000 worth of damage during a protest in August 2024. Their target was chosen because Barclays had the audacity to hold shares in Israeli weapons firm Elbit Systems.

After last month’s verdicts, Judge Philip Parry decided to consider a “terrorist connection” to the offending, a possibility that apparently escaped both the jury and the defendants until that very moment. This follows a precedent set by Mr Justice Johnson, who last month deemed four other Palestine Action activists - convicted of property damage during a raid on Elbit’s Filton factory - to have a “terrorist connection.” Parry has now asked lawyers to weigh in on whether the Barclays case merits similar treatment.

Malik expressed the group’s bewilderment: “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.” Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori called it an example of “the floodgates flowing” from Johnson’s decision.

Notably, the protest occurred before Palestine Action was banned as a terrorist group, and the Home Office didn’t deem it a terrorism incident at the time. The CPS, which previously didn’t raise the possibility of a terrorist connection, now argues that admissions made during the trial - including the defendants’ affiliation with Palestine Action and the protest being part of a wider campaign - justify the tag.

Akiko Hart, director of human rights organization Liberty, said the case highlights “the deep flaws in the UK’s counter-terror laws which capture activity most people would never consider terrorism.” Labour MP John McDonnell added, “Trying direct-action protesters under criminal law but then sentencing them under terrorist legislation cannot be seen in any way as fair or just.”

Curiously, similar offending by climate activists hasn’t triggered terrorist sentencing. For instance, seven Extinction Rebellion protesters received suspended sentences for causing over £100,000 damage at Barclays’ London HQ in 2023. In contrast, the Filton activists got lengthy custodial sentences and will face 15 years of terrorist notification requirements upon release, including informing police of any new device, relationship, bank account, or address.

A terrorist sentencing also means serving at least two-thirds of the tariff in prison (longer than usual) and, for parole, requiring defendants to rescind their political views. Because nothing says justice like demanding ideological surrender.

Barclays, meanwhile, reportedly sold all its Elbit shares in October 2024, having previously claimed it held them only for client-driven transactions. The sentencing in the Burnley case is scheduled for 4 September. The CPS and judiciary declined to comment, presumably because they’re busy thinking up more creative uses of counter-terrorism laws.