This ruling marks the first time in the history of British law that protesters convicted of vandalism have had their sentences augmented on the grounds of „links to terrorism.”.
A British judge convicted four Palestine Action protesters of terrorism and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented verdict was handed down despite the fact that the jury had found them guilty of crimes unrelated to terrorism during the trial.
Last month, a jury found Leona Kamio, Samuel Corner, Fatema Rajwani, and Charlotte Head guilty of criminal damage in connection with a raid carried out on August 6, 2024, at the Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol. Two other activists, Jordan Devlin and Zoe Rogers, were acquitted of the charges.
Elbit Systems is an Israeli defense contractor with its UK headquarters in Bristol.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Minister Jeremy Johnson, added „links to terrorism” to their charges.
In a preliminary ruling handed down in March 2025, Johnson found that there was a „pretense” of a terrorist connection in the case because, as he stated —the activists sought to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury that delivered the verdict.
This is the first instance in British legal history that this designation has been applied to direct-action protesters who have not been convicted of terrorist offenses or of intentionally causing violence.
In his ruling, Johnson stated that he based his decision on the fact that the defendants had caused „serious financial damage” with the intent to influence the UK government and „intimidate a social group.” He added that the defendants acted „to further political and/or ideological objectives.”.
Regarding the finding of a terrorist connection under Section 69 of the Prison Act, Johnson said: „I am certain that the vandalism committed by each defendant caused serious property damage, was intended to intimidate the Government of the United Kingdom and a social group [Elbit employees and employees of other companies associated with Elbit], and served to advance political or ideological objectives.”.
The Judgments
Head and Kamio were sentenced to six years in prison, Rajwani to five years and eight months, and Corner to a total of eight years and eight months.
The defendants’ family members and supporters watched the proceedings from the gallery with tears in their eyes, reacting with cheers and banging on the glass partition as the defendants left the dock. As they were led out, Kamio Marwan Makhoul quoted a line from a Palestinian poet: „In order to hear the birds, the drones must fall silent.”
The court heard that, in the days leading up to the trial, the prosecution had submitted evidence that influenced the judge’s assessment of the extent of the damages caused. This evidence was an independent forensic expert report that estimated the value of the damage caused at just over 1.2 million pounds. The report detailed the damage to the „building’s infrastructure, IT systems, operational equipment, and ancillary assets.” This included approximately 40 „significant military assets.”.
The defense attorneys questioned the timing of the report’s submission, saying it arrived „at the last minute,” and noted that it was filed after the insurance claim had been finalized in March.
Lead defense attorney Rajiv Menon asked why „the court had not received any explanation as to why there was such a long delay.” „Why did the prosecution file the motion 20 months after the operation?” he asked. He noted that due to the timing, the defense „did not have time to review the statement and respond to it.”.
Menon dismissed the report as „full of rumors and opinions,” noting that some of the costs detailed in it related to damage incurred in parts of the factory that the defendants had not even entered.
According to Menon, it would be „entirely inappropriate and unfair” for the judge to rely on this „highly controversial evidence” when determining the amount of damages. He added that it would be „completely unfair” for the court to draw conclusions based on the defendants’ motives, given that the defendants were not permitted to cite this as evidence during the trial.
„The prosecution can’t have its cake and eat it too,” Menon said. „They can’t exclude evidence on one hand, and then somehow sneak it in through the back door for the sentencing,” he added, noting that the move constitutes a „serious violation” of their right to a fair trial.
Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the courthouse; according to a police report, more than 100 people were arrested for displaying banners in support of the banned group Palestine Action.
Analysis of anti-propaganda:
This ruling marks a milestone in the history of the law in the United Kingdom and represents a drastic escalation in the relationship between activism and state power. The analysis can be broken down into three main points:
1. Legal Precedent: „Terrorist Affiliation” as a Punitive Measure
The most controversial aspect is that the judge applied the charge of „terrorist affiliation” to defendants whom the jury no He was charged and convicted not of terrorism, but only of vandalism.
Double standards: Within the framework of the rule of law, it is the jury’s responsibility to determine guilt. Here, however, the judge (Jeremy Johnson) carried out a kind of „retrospective classification.” By defining „ideological motivation” and „influencing the government” as terrorism, he pushed civil disobedience to the very edge of terrorism.
The „goat and the cabbage” dilemma: The defense’s argument („The Crown cannot have its cake and eat it”) is apt: on the one hand, the prosecution dropped the terrorism charge (to make it easier to convict them of vandalism), yet on the other hand, when sentencing them, they still treated their actions as terrorism. This raises serious concerns regarding due process.
2. Political Context: Activism vs. National Security
Palestine Action’s direct actions (paralyzing factories, destroying equipment) are deliberately provocative. The state’s response, however, indicates that the British government (and the judiciary) no longer treats this type of protest merely as a breach of public order, but as a threat to the functioning of the state.
Intimidation: The judge’s argument that the protesters„ aim was to ”intimidate a segment of the public (the employees)” constitutes a very broad interpretation of the concept of terrorism. By this logic, almost any radical environmental or political protest (targeting a company) could be classified as terrorism.
Protecting the defense industry: The ruling sends a clear message: physically obstructing the operations of defense companies such as Elbit Systems is now considered a „red line” in terms of national security and economic interests.
3. Social Impact: Deepening Polarization
The verdict is unlikely to have a deterrent effect; rather, it will likely have a radicalizing effect.
The role of the martyr: Prison sentences of more than eight years—which is an unprecedentedly harsh punishment for vandalism—are turning the activists into martyrs. The protests outside the courthouse and the arrests show that the movement is not backing down.
Erosion of civil rights: If the courts allow the prosecution to submit „expert reports” at the last minute, after a 20-month delay (which inflate the value of the damages to £1.2 million), it will minimize the possibility of a defense. This signals a „tightening” of the British legal system, which is a cause for concern among civil rights organizations.
Summary
The Judgment a political declaration disguised as law. With this ruling, the British court has crossed the line between punishing ordinary crimes and punishing ideologically motivated acts. The use of the „terrorist connection” label sets a precedent that threatens the rights of future protesters: from today onward, anyone who causes significant property damage for a political cause faces the risk of being labeled a „terrorist.”.
