A GROUP of Palestine Action activists could be sentenced as terrorists after a protest that caused more than £200,000 worth of damages, it has emerged.
The group of five targeted a Barclays bank in Lancashire, breaking several windows and throwing red paint on the branch's exterior.
The protesters aimed to put pressure on the banking giant to divest from Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems.
Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Mohammed Malik, 26, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted last month of criminal damage after targeting the bank in St James’s Street, Burnley on August 5 2024.
During the trial at Preston Crown Court, the activists gave evidence of their ties to Palestine Action and told jurors how the 2am attack was designed to pressure Barclays into withdrawing financial support for the weapons manufacturer.
According to The Guardian, judge Philip Parry is expected to consider whether he should rule the crime had a “terrorist connection” when he passes sentence on the five defendants in September, despite neither the jury nor the defendants having been informed of the possibility.
Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July 2025 and has carried out several direct action protests targeting Elbit due to the firm’s supply of equipment to the Israeli military during its genocidal war in Gaza.
The proscription makes it illegal to support or encourage support of the organisation.
Campaign group Liberty called the news of a possible second “terrorist ruling” in Preston “hugely concerning”, while Green Party leader Zack Polanski said supporters of the activists had warned that the Woolwich ruling “would set an extremely dangerous precedent”.
“Just one month later, those fears are already being realised”, he said.
“Spraying red paint on a Barclays branch over its investments in Israel’s largest weapons firm, which is arming the genocide against the Palestinian people, is not terrorism.”
All the defendants apart from Yaniv told their trial they were either closely linked to Palestine Action or fully fledged members, they had attended a training session on direct action and the attack on the Barclays branch was part of a wider campaign by the group to exert pressure on the bank over its financial ties to Elbit.
During the raid they wore masks and carried hammers, filming their actions to be distributed publicly and causing damage valued at £212,805.14, the court heard.
It is understood Judge Parry specifically cited the Woolwich ruling when asking for submissions about the potential terrorist connection.
If sentenced as terrorists, the activists will face longer jail terms, they will lose the right to automatic early release and they will spend an extended period of time on licence and subject to police monitoring.
Their lawyers are due to argue that the attack on the bank was not sufficiently serious to be marked as an act of terrorism, and they say the alleged terror link should have been raised earlier in the case.
One of the protesters, Malik, told The Guardian newspaper: "The judge and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] are now seeking to sentence us as terrorists for red paint and a few splintered windows.
"This goes far beyond the charges before the court and raises serious concerns about the increasing use of counter-terrorism legislation to persecute political dissent.
“The attempt to now sentence us as terrorists demonstrates the extremely dangerous precedent set by Judge Johnson, who sentenced four Palestine Action protestors as terrorists for destroying Israeli quadcopter drones.”
Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, said the development in the Preston case adds to fears that “terrorism laws are used to target protesters”.
“The line between direct action and terrorism is becoming dangerously blurred, and this confusion will leave many people too afraid to stand up for what they believe in,” she said.
“When it’s not clear what counts as terrorism, public trust collapses and without trust, counter-terror laws simply won’t work.
“There is an urgent need to update the current definition of terrorism to enable current and future governments to uphold their duty to safeguard the public and national security, whilst protecting people’s rights and preventing overreach.”
In the Woolwich case, Justice Johnson ruled in the early stages of the case that the attack on the Elbit factory had a “terrorist connection”, but the decision was not reported publicly after objections from the defendants.
In the Preston case, the possibility of a “terrorist connection” ruling did not emerge until after the jury had reached guilty verdicts on the charges of criminal damage.
After the defendants were found guilty on June 15, Judge Parry released them on bail until a sentencing hearing which has been set for September 4.
