‘My daughter was not given a fair trial’: Mother of jailed Palestine Action activist says case was a ‘stitch-up’
Leona 'Ellie' Kamio, a member of the Palestine Action group, was sentenced to six years in prison for her role in damaging an Israeli-linked defense factory in August 2024. Her mother, Emma Kamio, claims the trial was unfair, arguing that the jury was not informed that the defendants could be labeled as terrorists, which influenced the sentencing. Legal experts criticized the judge for determining the case as an act of terrorism without informing the jury. Ellie Kamio, previously acquitted of aggravated burglary, was retried under new charges. She and three co-defendants received a total of 26 years and four months in prison. Two other defendants were acquitted. Ellie Kamio, described as a former musician and teacher, was characterized by her mother as a 'geek' who had no prior criminal record.
The recent ruling by the UK Court of Appeal that the ban on the direct action group Palestine Action is lawful has sparked intense debate over the boundaries of free speech, national security, and the use of counter-terrorism laws. The decision, delivered on June 15, 2026, overturned a February ruling by the High Court, which had declared the ban unlawful and discriminatory. The High Court had found that then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had violated her own policy by approving the proscription, and that the ban risked a chilling effect on freedom of expression and assembly. It also argued that the measure was disproportionate, citing that only three out of 385 actions by the group met the threshold for terrorism under UK law.
The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that the ban was a "justified and proportionate" interference with individual rights, emphasizing that the government had struck a fair balance between protecting national security and preserving freedoms. The judges acknowledged the controversy surrounding the ruling but stressed that the decision was necessary to address perceived threats posed by the group. The ruling comes as the UK government continues to face criticism for its approach to counter-terrorism, particularly regarding the use of broad definitions of terrorism that critics argue could be weaponized against dissent.
The ban, which was imposed on July 5, 2025, makes membership or support for Palestine Action a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Since the ban was enacted, over 3,000 people have been arrested on suspicion of supporting the group, many for simply holding signs that read "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action." These arrests have drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations, which argue that the measures disproportionately target activists advocating for Palestinian rights and suppress legitimate political expression. The High Court had previously noted that the government’s reliance on property damage as a criterion for defining terrorism lacked clear legal standards, raising concerns about the arbitrary nature of the charges.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was influenced by the government’s assertion that Palestine Action’s actions, particularly those targeting defense contractors like Elbit Systems, constitute "serious damage to property" designed to intimidate the public and influence government policy. The ruling cited reports indicating that the group’s actions resulted in damages totaling millions of pounds, though the exact figures remain contested. The court emphasized that the group’s activities must be evaluated holistically, rather than solely based on isolated incidents. This interpretation has been criticized by legal experts and advocacy groups, who argue that it opens the door for the government to label a wide range of activism as terrorism, thereby undermining democratic principles.
The ruling has also reignited tensions between the UK government and civil society groups, particularly those aligned with Palestinian causes. Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, who led the legal challenge against the ban, expressed deep disappointment, describing the decision as a "truly dangerous attack on the right to protest." She called for further appeals to both the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the ruling represents a major setback for free speech and the rule of law. Supporters of the group have staged protests outside the Royal Courts of Justice, carrying signs that read "I supported Palestine Action" and "I opposed genocide," highlighting the emotional and political stakes of the case.
The legal battle has also had tangible consequences for individuals directly involved in the group’s activities. In August 2024, four activists were convicted of criminal damage after a raid on an Elbit Systems factory in Bristol. The incident, which caused £1.2 million in damage and left a police officer with a fractured spine, was described by the judge as an "act of terrorism" aimed at influencing government decisions. The activists, including Charlotte Head and Samuel Corner, received lengthy prison sentences ranging from four to seven years. Their cases have become emblematic of the broader conflict between the government’s counter-terrorism strategies and the rights of activists to engage in direct action.
Legal representatives for the activists have argued that the classification of their actions as terrorism sets a dangerous precedent, effectively criminalizing peaceful protest and enabling the government to exert unchecked control over dissent. Barrister Rajiv Menon, representing one of the defendants, warned that the ruling could lead to a "chilling and creeping authoritarianism" that threatens the foundations of democracy. He emphasized that the government’s application of the terrorism label in this case was fundamentally flawed and could be misused to silence critical voices.
As the ruling stands, the government has signaled its intent to maintain the ban, despite growing concerns about its legality and proportionality. The decision has also prompted calls for greater oversight of how counter-terrorism laws are applied, with some lawmakers urging a review of the criteria used to define terrorism. Meanwhile, the continued arrests of supporters and the suppression of protest underscore the challenges faced by activists seeking to advocate for Palestinian rights within a legal framework increasingly perceived as hostile to their cause. The situation remains highly contentious, with the future of the ban likely to hinge on further legal challenges and public pressure.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that the government's ban on the direct action group Palestine Action is lawful, overturning a previous High Court decision that deemed the ban unlawful and discriminatory. The High Court had argued that the ban violated the European Convention on Human Rights by infringing on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government plans to continue appealing the decision.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings and decisions from both the High Court and the Court of Appeal without overtly favoring either side. It includes quotes from both the government and the court rulings, providing a balanced view of the situation without using biased language or selective omm
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 75): The article accurately summarizes the court's decision and the previous High Court ruling, maintaining a neutral tone while discussing the implications of the ban.
The Guardian (UK)IndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 7518 days ago
The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that the ban on the activist group Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws was lawful, overturning a previous high court decision that found the ban unlawful. The ruling comes after the group was proscribed in July 2023, leading to over 3,000 arrests related to protests supporting the organization. The court's decision is expected to provide relief to the UK government, which faced criticism over the ban.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal ruling without overtly favoring either side. It reports the court's decision, the context of the ban, and the public response neutrally, avoiding loaded language or one-sided sourcing. The framing remains balanced, focusing on the legal process and outcomes rather than
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 75): The article accurately summarizes the court's decision and the implications, maintaining a neutral tone while discussing the legal and social context.
BBC News (UK)State / PublicCenterFactual 95Objective 7521 days ago
Palestine Action activists were jailed following a raid on a factory, with their convictions for criminal damage being classified as terrorism for the first time.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of legal proceedings without overtly favoring any side. It does not include commentary, framing, or sourcing that would indicate a clear ideological lean.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 75): The article provides precise details about the sentences and the nature of the offenses, maintaining a neutral tone while quoting political figures' reactions without overt bias.
Middle East EyeIndependentLeftFactual 95Objective 7014 days ago
Rights advocates and campaigners have expressed concerns over a recent Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the ban on the group Palestine Action, arguing that the decision could lead to a 'slide into authoritarianism.' The court rejected a previous High Court ruling that had found the ban unlawful, citing issues such as potential breaches of policy and disproportionate application. The High Court had argued that the ban could have a chilling effect on free speech and assembly, but the Court of Appeal disagreed.
Bias read (Left): The article presents arguments from both sides without overtly favoring one perspective. It reports on legal rulings and includes warnings from rights advocates while also detailing the court's reasoning. There is no clear ideological slant in the language or emphasis.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 70): The article accurately summarizes the legal arguments and court rulings, maintaining a relatively balanced tone while highlighting concerns from rights advocates without overt bias.
The IndependentIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 7018 days ago
More than 100 people were arrested in London for allegedly supporting the banned group Palestine Action. The Court of Appeal upheld the government's decision to classify the group as a terrorist organization, overturning a previous High Court ruling that had deemed the ban unlawful. Protesters included individuals carrying signs expressing their support for Palestine Action.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the legal dispute without overtly favoring either the government or the protesters. It includes details about the arrests, the court rulings, and quotes from the police without apparent bias. The framing remains neutral, focusing on factual reporting rather than op
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 70): The article accurately reports the legal proceedings and the protests, maintaining a balanced tone while acknowledging both the court's decision and the protesters' perspectives.
Daily MirrorIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 6518 days ago
More than 100 individuals were arrested during a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where judges upheld the ban on the organization Palestine Action as a terrorist group. The Court of Appeal ruled that the ban, imposed in July 2025, was lawful and a justified restriction on freedom of expression. This overturned an earlier High Court ruling that had found the ban unlawful. The arrest followed protests where demonstrators expressed support for Palestine Action.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly biased language or selective sourcing. It reports on legal rulings and police actions neutrally, providing details from both the judicial process and the protest event. There is no clear emphasis on one side over another, and the framing is un
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 65): The article accurately reports the legal proceedings and the protests, maintaining a relatively balanced tone while focusing on the court's decision and the arrests.
Middle East EyeIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 6519 days ago
More than 100 pro-Palestine protesters were arrested outside Woolwich Crown Court in London during the sentencing of four activists linked to Palestine Action. The demonstration included a sit-in with approximately 200 participants, who held signs such as 'Saving lives is not terrorism' and 'I support Palestine Action.' Police stated that arrests were conducted under counter-terrorism laws related to supporting a proscribed organization. This occurred amid ongoing legal debates regarding the group's status following a UK High Court ruling in February 2026 that deemed the proscription of Palest
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly biased language or selective sourcing. It reports on the arrests, the protesters' actions, and the legal context surrounding Palestine Action without taking a clear stance on the legality or morality of the protests or the counter-terrorism措施.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 65): The article accurately describes the events and legal outcomes, but leans slightly toward the protesters' viewpoint while reporting on the arrests and the legal challenges.
Novara MediaIndependentRightFactual 90Objective 6021 days ago
Four members of the group Palestine Action have been found guilty of criminal damage and will be sentenced for an 'act of terrorism' after breaking into a factory owned by Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit in Filton, near Bristol, in 2024. The activists targeted the facility to protest against British complicity in Israeli war crimes. The judge noted that their actions were part of a broader strategy to shut down Elbit and pressure the government.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the activists' actions as 'terrorism' and emphasizes the legal consequences under existing legislation, aligning with the government's position. It does not provide significant counter-narratives or contextualize the activists' motivations beyond the court's interpretation. The ph
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 60): The article accurately reports the court's findings and the activists' motivations, but uses phrases like 'act of terrorism' and presents the judge's statements without sufficient contextual balance.
The IndependentIndependentRightFactual 90Objective 6021 days ago
Seventy-two individuals were arrested during a protest outside the sentencing of Palestine Action activists. The Metropolitan Police stated that those arrested were doing so in support of a proscribed terrorist organization.
Bias read (Right): The article uses the term 'proscribed terror group' without providing additional context or explanation, which could imply a specific ideological stance against the group. The framing suggests alignment with official designations without critical examination.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 60): The article provides detailed information about the sentences and the incident, but includes personal accounts from the police officer that may introduce a biased perspective.
Daily MirrorIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 6021 days ago
Over 100 supporters were arrested by the Metropolitan Police during a protest outside Woolwich Crown Court, where approximately 500 people had gathered to support Palestine Action activists who were being sentenced.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on an event without overtly favoring any side. It provides factual information about the number of arrests and the location of the protest but does not include commentary, framing, or sourcing that indicates a clear ideological slant.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 60): The article provides specific details about the sentences and the protests, but uses emotionally charged language ('raiding', 'destroyed') and focuses heavily on the arrest numbers without presenting counterarguments.
Daily MailIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 5018 days ago
The UK Home Office has been granted permission to ban the organization Palestine Action after five appeal court judges ruled that the group 'overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism.' The ban, which was initially imposed in July 2023, makes membership or support for the group a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The ruling overturned a previous High Court decision that had found the initial proscription unlawful. The judges emphasized that the decision struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and national security. The case may still be takento
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of the legal proceedings without apparent ideological framing. It reports on judicial decisions and quotes officials neutrally, avoiding loaded language or one-sided emphasis.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 50): The article accurately reports the court's decision and quotes officials, but uses strong language like 'overtly promotes unlawful violence' and frames the issue in a way that supports the government's position without sufficient nuance.
Novara MediaIndependentLeftFactual 85Objective 5018 days ago
Four members of the group Palestine Action were sentenced to a combined 27 years in prison for damaging property at an Israeli weapons manufacturer's facility in Bristol. The court classified the act as terrorism, marking the first time in British history such a classification has been applied to property damage. The article questions this labeling, citing interviews with the defendants and their families, suggesting that the characterization of these individuals as 'terrorists' is unjustified.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the prosecution of the Palestine Action activists as an overreach, using terms like 'deranged' to describe the judicial process and questioning the legitimacy of labeling non-violent property damage as terrorism. The tone is critical of the legal system's application of the term '
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 50): The article provides detailed information about the sentences and the legal reasoning, but uses highly critical and biased language, particularly comparing the activists to historical figures without balance.
openDemocracyIndependentLeftFactual 75Objective 5523 days ago
Four members of the Palestine Action group were sentenced for breaking into a UK-based Israeli arms manufacturer's facility and damaging equipment, including drones. Their supporters argue that the actions were acts of resistance rather than terrorism, and the ruling has been described as a significant escalation in the UK's approach to Palestine solidarity activism.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the activists' actions as 'acts of resistance' and highlights the potential escalation in the UK's crackdown on Palestine solidarity movements. It emphasizes the destruction of Israeli military technology and presents the activists' perspective without counterbalancing arguments,
Why these scores (Factual 75 · Objective 55): The article accurately reports the sentencing and quotes the defense committee's statement, but presents a strongly biased perspective favoring the activists, using emotive language like 'miscarriage of justice' without balancing opposing viewpoints.
The IndependentIndependentCenterFactual 50Objective 5021 days ago
Four Palestine Action activists were jailed on Friday following a protest involving the arrest of dozens of people.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on legal consequences for activism without overtly favoring any side. It does not include explicit biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omissions that would indicate a clear ideological lean.
Leona 'Ellie' Kamio, a member of the Palestine Action group, was sentenced to six years in prison for her role in damaging an Israeli-linked defense factory in August 2024. Her mother, Emma Kamio, claims the trial was unfair, arguing that the jury was not informed that the defendants could be labeled as terrorists, which influenced the sentencing. Legal experts criticized the judge for determining the case as an act of terrorism without informing the jury. Ellie Kamio, previously acquitted of aggravated burglary, was retried under new charges. She and three co-defendants received a total of 26 years and four months in prison. Two other defendants were acquitted. Ellie Kamio, described as a former musician and teacher, was characterized by her mother as a 'geek' who had no prior criminal record.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the trial as unjust and highlights concerns about democratic principles being undermined, suggesting a critical stance toward the judicial process and potential implications for civil liberties. It emphasizes the activists' lack of prior offenses and portrays the prosecution as un
The article discusses an alleged secretive government unit called RICU, described as being responsible for spreading far-left propaganda and controlling narratives around terrorism. It claims RICU was established by Tony Blair under Sir Charles Blandford Farr to downplay Islamist threats and exaggerate the influence of far-right groups. The piece references a report by The Mail on Sunday's political editor Glen Owen, which suggests RICU's activities may threaten free speech.
Bias read (Right): The article uses strong, emotionally charged language such as 'secretive government department,' 'shadowy outfit,' and 'strangling free speech.' It frames the RICU as a far-left entity engaged in propaganda while dismissing concerns about Islamist terrorism. The tone is dismissive of counter-narratv
The co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, stated that the group will continue fighting to overturn its terrorism ban, either through the courts or by continuing civil disobedience efforts. A recent ruling upheld the ban, reversing an earlier high court decision. Despite the setback, Ammori remains confident in the legality of their position and plans to pursue further legal avenues, including potentially the European Court of Human Rights. Meanwhile, over 3,000 people have been arrested in support of the group's cause.
Bias read (Left): The article presents the perspective of Palestine Action's co-founder, emphasizing the group's belief that the ban is disproportionate to free speech and the right to protest. It highlights the group's commitment to challenging the ban through legal and civil disobedience means, suggesting a strong,
The Court of Appeal has upheld the Home Secretary's decision to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The article includes an interview with Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori discussing the implications of this ruling. Additional segments cover a schoolgirl's suggestion for entertainment amid new social media restrictions by Starmer, and confirmation from Iran that Trump's claim regarding a new peace deal is accurate.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a legal decision without overtly favoring any political side. It includes perspectives from multiple individuals but does not present biased language or selective sourcing.
The article discusses the banning of Palestine Action by the UK government, which was upheld by appeal judges following a legal challenge. It outlines the group's origins, including a 2020 protest against Elbit Systems and a 2022 attack on a Thales defense facility in Glasgow. The article notes the number of arrests linked to the ban and mentions the lack of clarity regarding the group's structure and leadership.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly biased language or selective sourcing. It reports on the legal proceedings, actions taken by Palestine Action, and associated consequences without taking a clear stance on the legitimacy of the group or the ban.
The UK's Court of Appeal has ruled that the government's ban on the group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization is lawful. The court overturned a previous High Court decision that found the ban violated the right to protest. The ruling states that the ban was 'justified and proportionate.' The group's co-founder plans to appeal to the UK Supreme Court, though it remains uncertain if the court will accept the case. Since the ban was implemented in July of last year, thousands have been arrested during related protests.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the court's ruling without overtly favoring either side. It includes quotes from both the court and the group's co-founder, providing balanced perspectives. There is no evident editorializing or biased language.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
United Kingdom
