UK Court Weighs Terrorism Sentencing for Palestine Action Activists Convicted Before Proscription
Five Palestine Action activists convicted of criminal damage face a ruling at Preston Crown Court on whether their offences will carry a "terrorist connection" at sentencing, a determination that could significantly increase the severity of their penalties despite the fact that the group was not proscribed at the time of their trial Al Jazeera.
Brendon O'Hagan (28), Amanda Kelly (31), Hmeera Atiqnisar (31), Mohammed Malik (28), and Alma Yaniv (70) were convicted of causing 212,000 pounds ($290,000) in damages during a direct action targeting a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley, Lancashire, in August 2024. The sentencing is scheduled for September 4. Judge Philip Parry, who presided over the trial, notified the defendants' legal team after the verdicts that he intended to consider whether the offence carried a terrorist connection. The determination itself will be made by Judge Robert Altham Al Jazeera.
The timing is central to the controversy. At the time of the verdicts, Palestine Action had not yet been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Neither the defendants nor the jury were aware that terrorism-related sentencing considerations might apply. A senior lawyer described the judge's decision to consider the terrorist connection as "unfair" BBC News.
Palestine Action was proscribed by UK lawmakers in July 2025. That designation faced immediate legal challenge. In February 2026, the High Court ruled the proscription unlawful in the case R (Ammori) v SSHD, a judgment that also recorded that three Palestine Action activists had broken into RAF Brize Norton Judiciary of England and Wales. The unlawful-proscription ruling was reversed on appeal in June 2026 Financial Times. A subsequent open judgment, "Final open judgment - Ammori v SSHD," published on the Judiciary of England and Wales website in June 2026, addressed the challenge to the Secretary of State for the Home Department's decision to proscribe the group Judiciary of England and Wales.
The Burnley case is not the first instance in which UK courts have applied terrorism sentencing enhancements to Palestine Action activists. In June, four members convicted of criminal damage at Elbit Systems' Filton site near Bristol were sentenced as terrorists at Woolwich Crown Court in London Al Jazeera.
Under English sentencing law, a "terrorist connection" finding operates as an aggravating factor that elevates the sentence's severity range for an underlying offence, in this case criminal damage, without requiring a separate terrorism conviction. The mechanism allows a sentencing judge to determine, on the balance of probabilities, that the offence was connected to terrorism as defined under the Terrorism Act 2000. Once such a connection is established, sentencing guidelines push penalties upward.
The broader context here is one of retroactive application. The activists committed and were tried for their offences while Palestine Action operated as a non-proscribed organisation. The terrorism sentencing consideration arises from a proscription that took effect only after their trial concluded. For the defendants, this means facing penalties calibrated to a legal characterisation of their actions that did not exist in the form applied when those actions were committed and adjudicated. The Woolwich precedent from June, involving the Elbit Systems Filton action, establishes that courts are willing to apply this framework retrospectively to Palestine Action cases.
That willingness creates a throughline from proscription to sentencing across multiple proceedings, and it narrows the practical distance between being a member of a group designated as terrorist and being sentenced as a terrorist for actions taken before that designation took effect. The September 4 sentencing at Preston Crown Court will indicate how far that framework extends in the Burnley case.
