A judge has ruled that five Palestine Action activists who vandalized a Barclays branch in Burnley will not be sentenced as terrorists. The activists, dubbed the “Barclays five,” were found guilty in June of causing damage exceeding £200,000 after breaking windows and throwing red paint at the bank in August 2024.
They targeted the site in protest at Barclays because it held shares in the Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems. Judge Altham, the recorder of Preston, ruled that while the damage was substantial, it was not of the size of other attacks or against a sensitive property, such as an arms company.
The five activists, Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70, will still be sentenced next month for criminal damage, but will face shorter jail terms as a result of the ruling.
Related: Israel condemned over aid worker’s death
Supporters of the “Barclays five” gathered outside Preston crown court before the ruling, which was seen as a significant victory for the activists. The trial judge, Philip Parry, had previously indicated that he would consider a “terrorist connection” to the offending, following new information that came to light during the trial.
The five activists released a statement after the ruling, saying they were “extremely relieved that the court has seen sense” and accusing the state of “attempting to equate property damage to the Israeli war machine with terrorism”. They argued that a terrorism sentence would have had severe consequences, including notification requirements for 15-plus years upon release.
Kerry Moscogiuri, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, welcomed the ruling, saying that “no one should be treated more harshly under the law because their crimes were part of a protest against genocide or any other issue”. She called for the proscription against Palestine Action to be lifted and an end to the misuse of sweeping counter-terror powers against direct action protesters.
Related: Ghana debates disenfranchisement as punishment
Barclays had sold all its Elbit shares, following criticism of its involvement with the Israeli weapons company. The bank had previously said it held the shares only in relation to client-driven transactions, being neither an investor nor shareholder in the arms company.
The ruling has significant implications for the use of counter-terror powers against direct action protesters. They argued that the use of such powers was a result of extensive lobbying by the Israeli government, Elbit Systems, pro-Israel lobby groups, and politicians with vested interests.
The case highlights the need for careful consideration of the use of terrorism laws and the potential consequences for protesters. The ruling is seen as a victory for the right to protest and a blow to the use of counter-terror powers to silence dissenting voices.
