Why Five Protesters Who Damaged a Barclays Branch Won't Be Sentenced as Terrorists
A judge has decided that five activists who caused more than £200,000 in damage to a Barclays bank branch will not be sentenced as terrorists, ending a legal fight that had raised questions about when protest actions can be treated as terrorism.
The five activists are part of a group called Palestine Action. In August 2024, they broke windows and threw red paint at a Barclays branch in Burnley, a town in Lancashire, England. They did this because Barclays held shares in Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons company. Barclays said it held those shares only to carry out transactions for clients, not as an investment, and by October 2024 the bank had sold all its Elbit shares (The Guardian).
The five defendants — 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 causing criminal damage. Criminal damage is the legal term for intentionally destroying or harming someone else's property.
The complication came after the trial. Judge Philip Parry told lawyers on both sides in June that he wanted to consider whether the crime had a "terrorist connection." In English law, a judge can find that a crime is linked to terrorism, which can lead to a longer prison sentence than the crime would normally carry. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) — the government body that brings criminal cases — then argued the five should be sentenced under terrorism rules, even though prosecutors had never mentioned terrorism during the trial itself (The Guardian).
Here is why that matters: the jury that convicted the five was never told that terrorism was on the table. The defendants themselves said they did not know their cases might be treated as terrorism until after the guilty verdicts came in. Defence lawyers argued it was unfair to introduce the terrorism consideration only after conviction. Judge Parry has now decided not to apply the terrorism enhancement, though the sentencing hearing has not yet finished and the final penalties have not been set.
The broader context here is the government's treatment of Palestine Action as a whole organisation. A government review body called the Proscription Review Group unanimously agreed that Palestine Action was "currently concerned in terrorism," according to a court judgment published on June 15, 2026 (Judiciary of England and Wales). An earlier version of that judgment, from February 13, 2026, noted that if new legislation passes, it would become illegal to be a member of Palestine Action or to encourage support for it (Judiciary of England and Wales).
That creates a tension worth noting. A government body assessed the organisation as involved in terrorism, while a judge looking at the actions of five individual members decided their crime did not warrant a terrorist connection. These are not formally contradictory findings, because the two decisions use different legal tests and serve different purposes. But they pull in opposite directions for an organisation that could face an outright ban.
There is also a practical irony. By October 2024, Barclays had sold all its shares in Elbit Systems — the very thing the protesters were trying to pressure the bank to do. That does not change the legal status of what the activists did in August 2024. But the object of their protest has since been achieved by the bank itself, while the legal consequences for the protesters have continued to move through the courts.
The five will now be sentenced for criminal damage without the terrorism enhancement. The sentencing hearing has not yet concluded, and the specific penalties remain to be determined.
