Palestine Action Activists Escape Terrorism Sentences in Burnley UK Case 2026

Key Points:

• Five activists from the banned group Palestine Action, known as the “Barclays five”, will not face enhanced terrorism sentences for vandalising a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley.
• The decision was handed down by Judge Robert Altham, the recorder of Preston, who ruled that the incident did not meet the legal threshold required for a statutory “terrorist connection”.
• The defendants—Brendon O’Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik, and Alma Yaniv—were found guilty of criminal damage in June 2026 after causing approximately £200,000 in property damage in August 2024.
• The group targeted the high street bank by smashing windows and applying red paint to protest against Barclays holding shares in the Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems.
• Neither the jury nor the defendants were aware during the trial that a terrorist connection would be considered, as trial judge Philip Parry only raised the issue following the guilty verdicts.
• The defendants released a statement expressing relief while condemning the state for attempting to equate property damage during anti-war demonstrations with acts of terrorism.
• Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International UK and Liberty, welcomed the judgment but raised concerns over the potential “chilling effect” on public protests.
• The defendants remain scheduled for sentencing next month strictly under standard criminal damage guidelines, facing considerably shorter prison terms.

Burnley (Bristol Express News) August 22, 2026 – Five members of the banned direct-action group Palestine Action will not be sentenced as terrorists for their involvement in a high-profile vandalism incident targeting a high street bank in Lancashire, a senior judge at Preston Crown Court has determined.

The decision provides clarity on the legal limits surrounding the application of counter-terrorism powers to political protesters charged with property damage.

Why did the Preston Crown Court dismiss the terrorism sentencing threshold?

As reported by Haroon Siddique of The Guardian, five campaigners—Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, Mohammed Malik, 28, and Alma Yaniv, 70—were found guilty by a jury in June 2026 of criminal damage. The charges stemmed from an incident in August 2024 where the individuals, dubbed the “Barclays five,” shattered windows and threw red paint at a branch of Barclays Bank in the town of Burnley, inflicting roughly £200,000 in structural damage.

The group stated the direct action was conducted to protest against the financial institution’s holding of shares in Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems.

Following the guilty verdicts, trial judge Philip Parry informed prosecution and defence barristers that he intended to consider whether a “terrorist connection” should be applied to the offences during sentencing. This initial consideration followed a separate landmark ruling in which four other Palestine Action activists were sentenced as terrorists for damage caused to an Elbit Systems factory in Filton.

However, during proceedings at Preston Crown Court, Judge Robert Altham, the recorder of Preston, formally dismissed suggestions that the Burnley defendants would face terrorism sentences. Judge Altham ruled that while the financial damage was undeniably substantial, the property targeted was not a sensitive installation—such as a military manufacturing site or arms firm—and therefore failed to satisfy the statutory legal threshold required for a terrorist sentencing classification.

As detailed by Dania Akkad of Declassified UK, the defendants and the jury were kept completely unaware during the trial that terrorism sentencing provisions were being contemplated.

Defence representatives argued that four of the five defendants had openly acknowledged their membership of Palestine Action during trial proceedings, but noted that this factor was legally irrelevant to the charge because Palestine Action had not been designated as a proscribed terrorist organisation under UK law at the time the Burnley incident occurred in August 2024.

How did the “Barclays five” and civil rights groups respond to the verdict?

Following the judge’s determination, the five activists released a joint statement outlining their reaction to the ruling. In statements documented by news media, the defendants expressed that they were “extremely relieved that the court has seen sense,” whilst maintaining that the application of counter-terrorism provisions “should never have been an option”. They accused the UK authorities of

“attempting to equate property damage to the Israeli war machine with terrorism”.

Elaborating on the legal implications they faced prior to the ruling, the activists stated: “A terrorism sentence would not only aggravate our sentence significantly, it would mean we would be imprisoned as terrorists and subject to notification requirements for 15-plus years upon release”. They added:

“Those requirements include notifying police of any new address, bank account, phone number, email address, relationship and more. If we failed to do so, even by accident, we would face an additional five years in prison”.

The group further asserted in their statement:

“The proscription of Palestine Action, the arrests of over 3,500 people under the Terrorism Act for holding signs and the sentencing of direct action activists as terrorists, are all tools being used by the state to protect the Israeli weapons industry and continue its role in the ongoing genocide in Gaza”.

They concluded:

“The use of counter-terror powers against direct action for Palestine came after extensive lobbying by the Israeli government, Elbit Systems, pro-Israel lobby groups and politicians with vested interests”.

Human rights organizations also offered formal assessments of the judgment. As reported by Raphael Boyd of The Guardian, Kerry Moscogiuri, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, stated:

“The fact that the defendants in today’s case were not sentenced as terrorists is welcome. No one should be treated more harshly under the law because their crimes were part of a protest against genocide or any other issue, and the misuse of terrorism powers in this way should never have even been considered”.

Moscogiuri added:

“We now need to see the proscription against Palestine Action lifted and an end to the misuse of sweeping counter-terror powers against direct action protesters. The government should begin the process of reversing the years of attacks on our right to protest, one of the most effective tools we have to hold our leaders to account”.

Similarly, Ruth Ehrlich, director of external relations at the civil liberties advocacy group Liberty, noted that while the decision was positive, the fact that a terrorist connection was evaluated at all demonstrated structural flaws in current legal definitions, warning of a “chilling effect” on public participation in democratic protest.

Explore More UK News

D&T Electrical Services: Trusted Family-Run Electricians in Havering and Essex

UK Tech Start-Ups Lose Faith in Public Procurement, London 2026

Background of the particular development

The legal struggle surrounding Palestine Action and its campaign against commercial entities tied to defense manufacturing represents a significant point of friction in recent British legal history. Palestine Action was founded with the stated objective of disrupting the supply chains of arms manufacturers, primarily targeting sites owned by or affiliated with Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest defense contractor.

The campaign extended beyond defense plants to financial institutions providing banking, underwriting, or investment services to these contractors. Barclays Bank became a primary focus for civil demonstration, with multiple branches across the United Kingdom experiencing demonstrations, spray-painting, and window breaking.

During the trial of the Burnley activists, prosecution documents confirmed that Barclays held investments and loans connected to Elbit Systems at the time of the August 2024 demonstration. Reports published in October 2024 subsequently indicated that Barclays had divested its shareholdings in Elbit, though the bank maintained that its holdings had been driven solely by client transactions rather than principal investments.

The wider context shifted dramatically when the UK Home Office moved to officially proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, making membership or express support for the organization a criminal offense.

The subsequent move by prosecutors to seek “terrorist connections” for historic criminal damage offences marked an unprecedented expansion of counter-terrorism sentencing enhancements.

Prior to the Burnley decision, a landmark ruling regarding direct action at an arms plant in Filton established the legal precedent of applying post-conviction terror designations to property damage offenses.

The ruling by Judge Altham at Preston Crown Court establishes a clear boundary, limiting the application of such terrorism enhancements exclusively to acts causing high-level disruption against sensitive military or national infrastructure, rather than commercial high street locations.

Prediction: How this development can affect direct-action protesters and civil liberties campaigners

This ruling will directly impact political activists, legal defense teams, and human rights advocacy groups operating across the United Kingdom. By ruling that high street property damage does not satisfy the statutory threshold for a terrorism connection, the judiciary has drawn a defined legal line between standard criminal damage and terrorism offences.

For grassroots activists and civil liberties campaigners, this decision mitigates the immediate threat of direct-action protest automatically leading to counter-terrorism notification requirements, elongated prison terms, and post-release surveillance regimes typically reserved for national security threats.

It provides defense lawyers with a binding precedent to challenge the retroactive or post-verdict application of terrorism laws to non-violent or low-level property damage.

Conversely, because the ruling explicitly differentiated between high street commercial locations and “sensitive property” such as military installations or arms manufacturing facilities, activists targeting defense suppliers directly will continue to face the potential risk of counter-terrorism sentencing.

Consequently, future political demonstrations may see a strategic shift away from direct physical interventions at defense-adjacent corporate premises, while civil rights organizations will likely use this ruling to further lobby Parliament for statutory reforms to protect the broader right to peaceful dissent and public protest.