Five Palestine Action activists who were convicted of criminal damage in June 2026 for cracking windows and spraying red paint on the frontage of Barclays bank in Burnley in August 2024, were told by the court that their sentences will not be subject to the application of a ‘terrorism connection’, as had been originally suggested by prosecution barrister Anthony Horsfall and pursued by trial judge Philip Parry.
Had the judge used the power under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 , which allows for non-terrorism criminal convictions to be labelled ‘terrorism-related’, this could have resulted in lengthy prison sentences and serious damage to the futures of the five defendants. This was the case for four members of the Filton 25, who were sentenced in June to serve sentences for ‘offenders of particular concern’, who are subject to extreme levels of surveillance and censorship while in prison and who will be compelled to endure draconian ‘terrorism notification’ arrangements on release.
On 21 August Blackburn for Palestine mobilised 400 people from all over the north of England to gather outside Preston Crown Court with flags, drums and banners in solidarity with the Barclays 5 – Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik and Alma Yaniv. The press box in the court was full and the public gallery overflowing. Local independent MP Adnan Hussein, who became an MP due to his apparent support for Palestine, gave no support whatsoever even though Mohammed Malik is one of his constituents.
Pete Weatherby KC, representing Brendon O’Hagan, said the accusation of terrorism was ‘manifestly not correct’. The Terrorism Act 2000 characterises terrorism as creating a climate of fear, causing serious economic disruption, intimidating the public and using serious violence for political ends aimed at the government and the state. The defendants’ actions took place in the early hours of the morning when no employees or members of the public were around, so no intimidation occurred. Their actions were intended to disrupt corporations (Elbit and Barclays), not the government or the state. A corporation is not a section of the public. Furthermore, Weatherby said that nowhere is it stated that there is a financial threshold beyond which the damage caused becomes ‘terrorism related’ and therefore Justice Johnson’s ruling in the case of the four Filton should not apply in the case of the Barclays 5.
The show of strength and solidarity outside and inside the court, together with this and other legal arguments had the desired effect, and judge Robert Altham, who has a reputation for heavy handedness, was compelled to accept the argument that the ‘terrorism connection’ should not apply.
This was a victory for all activists in Britain who oppose the collaboration of British corporations like Barclay with the Zionist genocide.
The prosecution and defence were given until 18 September to make final submissions, and the sentencing on the criminal damage charges will take place on 30 October. We will be at court then too!
