Five Palestine Action activists who vandalized a Barclays branch in Burnley will not be sentenced under terrorism charges, a judge ruled today. The group, known as the Barclays Five, includes Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70. They were found guilty in June of causing over £200,000 in damage after breaking windows and spraying red paint on the bank’s premises in the early hours of 5 August 2024. Prosecutors had sought to apply terrorism charges retroactively, but Judge Robert Altham at Preston Crown Court rejected the request, stating the damage did not meet the threshold outlined in the Terrorism Act 2000. The ruling followed a trial where the activists argued their actions were part of a broader campaign targeting Barclays for its investments in Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems. Barclays had divested from Elbit in October 2024. The judge emphasized that while the damage was significant, it lacked the characteristics of serious harm typically associated with terrorism-related offenses. He noted that the attack did not target a sensitive property or align with patterns observed in past cases involving Palestine Action. This distinction was crucial, as applying terrorism charges could have led to severe consequences, including extended monitoring requirements post-release and potential imprisonment for failing to comply with these conditions. The activists, however, will still face sentencing for criminal damage on 4 September, though the ruling likely reduces the severity of their punishment. The decision sparked celebrations among supporters who gathered outside the court. Over 200 individuals reportedly participated in a sit-in organized by the activist group Defend Our Judges, leading to multiple arrests. The activists expressed relief, with Mohammed Malik describing the ruling as a “massive relief” after an “emotional rollercoaster.” He also highlighted the plight of the Filton 25, another group of Palestine Action activists facing terrorism-related convictions, urging continued support for their cause. Liberty’s director, Ruth Ehrlich, welcomed the ruling but warned that it might discourage future protests, citing concerns over the lack of transparency regarding the application of terrorism legislation post-verdict. The case unfolded amid broader tensions surrounding the use of counter-terrorism laws against activists protesting Israeli policies. The activists claimed that the state’s approach was influenced by lobbying efforts from the Israeli government, Elbit Systems, and pro-Israel advocacy groups. They argued that the misuse of counter-terrorism powers aimed to shield the Israeli weapons industry and sustain its involvement in the conflict in Gaza. A statement released by the group condemned the state’s attempts to equate property damage against the Israeli war machine with terrorism, asserting that such measures were designed to suppress dissent. The ruling coincided with the ongoing legal battle involving the Filton 25, a separate group of activists who were charged with criminal damage and violent disorder over a raid on an Elbit Systems facility in South Gloucestershire. A jury failed to reach verdicts on seven of the eight defendants, potentially leading to a retrial. The eighth defendant was found guilty of criminal damage. The case highlights the broader controversy around the use of terrorism laws to prosecute activists, with critics arguing that such measures disproportionately target those opposing Israeli policies. The Filton 25 Defense Committee described the charges as an attempt to justify the group’s designation as a terrorist organization, noting that some activists had already served lengthy periods in custody without conviction. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the outcomes of these cases may shape the future of activism in Britain, particularly for those challenging corporate ties to the Israeli military-industrial complex. The Barclays Five’s fate, along with that of the Filton 25, underscores the complexities of navigating legal systems in the context of political and ethical debates.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
United Kingdom
