Barclays 5 avoid terrorism sentencing, but judge's reasoning leaves door open

​

• Judge Philip Parry has ruled against applying a "terrorist connection" to the Barclays 5's sentencing
• The ruling was made on the narrow basis that he was not satisfied the damage caused met the threshold of "serious" - not on the broader argument that the prosecution's post-conviction pursuit of a terrorism sentence was procedurally improper
• Every argument the defence raised on procedural impropriety - including that neither the jury nor the defendants were told a terrorism sentencing was in play during trial - was rejected

Preston — In a huge relief, the Barclays five will not be sentenced as terrorists. That is a result worth welcoming, and a testament to the defence mounted. But the basis for the ruling should temper any sense that the underlying practice has been checked: the judge found insufficient damage here, not that reclassifying a case as terrorism after conviction is improper. Nothing stops the same maneuver being tried again against defendants whose damage bill is higher.

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said:

"The Barclays 5 will not be sentenced as terrorists, and that is the right outcome. It should give hope to others facing the same manoeuvre: post-conviction attempts to reclassify criminal damage as terrorism are not guaranteed to succeed.

But this was won on a narrow basis. The judge was not satisfied the damage met the threshold of serious - he did not find that trying someone on one basis and sentencing them on another is itself improper. Every argument to that effect was rejected. Future defendants facing this tactic should take confidence from today's result, but should not assume the door has been closed. It has only been left ajar, for now, on the specific facts of this case."

[ENDS]