Philip Parry said he intends to consider a terrorist connection when sentencing five Palestine Action activists over damage to Barclays in Burnley. The case centres on broken windows and red paint at a Barclays Bank branch in Lancashire, after a protest that took place before Palestine Action was banned.
Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik and Alma Yaniv were found guilty of causing £212,000 of damage during the direct action protest in Burnley in August 2024. The prosecution says the bank was targeted because it held shares in Elbit Systems.
Parry follows the Filton case
After last month’s verdicts, Parry told the prosecution and the defence that he would consider a terrorist connection to the offending. He also attached Mr Justice Johnson’s judgment when asking lawyers for submissions on whether the Barclays case should be treated that way. In the Filton case, four other Palestine Action activists became the first defendants convicted of property damage whose offending was deemed to have a terrorist connection.
That earlier ruling came after a raid on Elbit’s Filton factory near Bristol. In that case, the activists received lengthy custodial sentences and will also be subject to 15 years of terrorist notification requirements on release.
Prosecution and defence dispute scope
The CPS is arguing that the terrorist connection came to light only through admissions made by the defendants at trial, including their affiliation to Palestine Action and that the protest formed part of a wider campaign against Barclays. The jury and the defendants had not previously been told that a terrorist connection might be considered. The bank protest was not assessed by the home secretary or officials to be a terrorism incident.
Mohammed Malik said the judge and the CPS were seeking to sentence the activists as terrorists for “red paint and a few splintered windows.” He also warned that the move would follow “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.”
UK counter-terror sentencing
Akiko Hart said the case exposed “the deep flaws in the UK’s counter-terror laws which capture activity most people would never consider terrorism.” John McDonnell said, “Trying direct-action protesters under criminal law but then sentencing them under terrorist legislation cannot be seen in any way as fair or just. It is a practice that seems to be specifically targeted to silence the voices of people speaking out against the genocide in Gaza.”
The Burnley case now turns on sentencing submissions about whether the court should attach the same kind of terrorist finding used in the Filton case. What sentence each of the five activists receives will depend on that decision, with Parry set to weigh the legal label before the penalties are fixed.
