‘BarclayS 5’ Palestine activists will not be tried as terrorists

Five activists who broke windows and threw red paint at a Barclays Bank branch in protest over Israel’s genocide in Gaza will not be sentenced as terrorists, a judge has ruled. Judge Robert Altham told a packed room at Preston Crown Court on Friday that the damage the activists caused with their August 2024 direct-action protest in Burnley was “significant”. However, Altham said he was “not satisfied” that the damage met the statutory measures of “serious damage” required under the terrorism act. Visibly relieved, the defendants filed out of the tense courtroom to a gathering of family and friends who cheered and clapped. “Thank God,” one said, hugging a friend. Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Mohammed Malik, 28, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted of criminal damage this June over the August 2024 protest which caused £212,805 worth of damage. In the agreed facts of the case, the prosecution’s lawyers acknowledged that, at the time of the protest, Barclays provided investments and loans to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms firm. Two months later, it was reported that Barclays had sold all its Elbit shares. The action was carried out in the name of Palestine Action almost a year before the group was banned under terrorism laws, and before it was illegal to be a member or supporter of the group. It was only after the trial concluded that the presiding judge, Philip Parry, said he intended to consider whether to apply a “terrorist connection” when sentencing the defendants. This came after the landmark decision days earlier to sentence four Palestine Action activists convicted of criminal damage as terrorists over their own direct action protest at an Elbit Systems site in Filton near Bristol. It was the first time in British legal history that direct-action protesters convicted of criminal damage were sentenced as terrorists, a move human rights groups warned was a misuse of counter-terrorism powers. ‘Deep flaws’ Defendants and supporters said they feared the earlier decision had set a dangerous precedent. If a terrorism connection was applied in their case, they could have faced lengthy prison sentences and treatment as terrorists for decades following their release. But after the ruling which followed a two-hour hearing, the five activists celebrated with around 200 supporters who beat drums and carryied placards outside. Trucks, buses and cars passed by, honking support. Addressing the crowd, Atiqnisar said that, while she was relieved by the ruling, she had not sought victory in the courtroom. “We are not victorious in the court rooms of a state that is protecting and sustaining the most monstrous entity in modern history and its biggest weapons supplier,” she told the crowd. “We are victorious when we silence the drones before they occupy the skies of Gaza and before they turn Palestinian men, women and children into pieces.” Ruth Ehrlich, director of external relations at rights group Liberty, welcomed the news, but said the fact that “a terror connection could even be considered highlights deep flaws in the UK’s laws”. She said the consideration alone is likely to have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to exercise their right to protest and stand up for what they believe in. “What makes this case all the more shocking is that the jury and defendants were unaware that the terrorism connection could be applied after the verdict had been reached,” she said. She called for an urgent update to the current definition of terrorism “to enable current and future governments to uphold their duty to safeguard the public, whilst protecting people’s rights and preventing overreach”. The five are scheduled to be sentenced on 4 September.