Five activists from the group Palestine Action have been found guilty of breaking windows and throwing red paint at a Barclays Bank in Burnley, Lancashire, causing £212,000 in damage. Now, a judge says he wants to consider whether their actions should be treated as having a connection to terrorism when it comes to sentencing them. The five are Brendon O'Hagan (28), Amanda Kelly (31), Humeera Atiqnisar (31), Mohammed Malik (28), and Alma Yaniv (70). They targeted the bank in August 2024 because Barclays held shares in Elbit Systems, a company that makes weapons for Israel. The Guardian

After the jury delivered its guilty verdict, Judge Philip Parry told lawyers on both sides that he planned to consider whether a terrorist connection applied to the case. This was unexpected. Neither the defendants nor the jury had been told beforehand that terrorism sentencing was even a possibility. The judge pointed to a ruling from another judge, Mr Justice Johnson, when asking lawyers to argue whether the terrorist connection should apply. The Guardian

That ruling came from a different case. Four other Palestine Action activists had broken into an Elbit factory near Bristol. After they were convicted, a judge decided their actions had a terrorist connection. They received long prison sentences and will have to follow terrorist notification rules for 15 years, which means regularly reporting their personal details to the police, the way people convicted of terrorism offences must do. The Guardian

The Crown Prosecution Service, which brings criminal cases in England and Wales, argued that the Burnley five should also be sentenced as terrorists. But prosecutors had not raised the terrorism angle before or during the trial. They say it only became clear from things the defendants said while testifying, including that they belonged to Palestine Action and that the bank protest was part of a wider campaign against Barclays. The Guardian

At the time of the protest, Palestine Action was not yet banned as a terrorist group. The government did not treat the protest as a terrorism incident. Palestine Action was later banned as a terrorist organisation on July 4, 2025, after a court challenge against the ban failed. The Guardian

The case has drawn strong criticism. Akiko Hart, who leads the civil liberties group Liberty, said the case showed "the deep flaws in the UK's counter-terror laws which capture activity most people would never consider terrorism." Labour MP John McDonnell said it "cannot be seen in any way as fair or just" to try protesters under ordinary criminal law but then sentence them under terrorism rules. He said it appears "specifically targeted to silence the voices of people speaking out against the genocide in Gaza." The Guardian

The way similar cases have been handled makes the criticism sharper. In 2023, seven Extinction Rebellion protesters broke windows at Barclays' London headquarters, causing more than £100,000 in damage. They received suspended sentences, meaning no actual prison time. Their actions were never considered to have a terrorist connection. The Guardian

Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the Barclays case showed "the floodgates flowing" from Justice Johnson's earlier ruling that connected property damage to terrorism. The Guardian

The broader context here is that UK counter-terrorism sentencing appears to be expanding into new territory. Applying a terrorist connection to property damage that happened before Palestine Action was even banned stretches the law in a way that could affect many forms of protest. The difference in how Palestine Action activists and climate protesters have been treated for similar crimes raises real questions about whether the law is being applied consistently. The fact that the terrorist connection is being considered only after the trial ended, and without telling the defendants beforehand, means their own testimony in court is being used to justify a harsher sentence they could not have predicted. If belonging to a group and joining a broader campaign is enough to trigger terrorist sentencing, that suggests organisational membership itself is becoming a factor in how people are sentenced for actions that were not treated as terrorism when they happened.