Terrorism sentencing of Barclays 5 would extend authoritarian precedent set against Palestine Action

• Five activists - Brendon O'Hagan, Amanda Kelly, Hmeera Atiqnisar, Mohammed Malik and Alma Yaniv - convicted of criminal damage in June 2026 over an August 2024 direct action against a Barclays branch in Burnley, targeting the bank's investment in Elbit Systems
• Neither the defendants nor the jury were told during trial that a terrorism sentencing was under consideration; the CPS only raised it after conviction, following Judge Philip Parry's circulation of the Filton sentencing decision
• The action predates Palestine Action's proscription and was never assessed by the Home Secretary as amounting to terrorism
• Sentencing under a "terrorist connection" would subject the five to parole board approval, forced renunciation of political views, and up to 15 years of notification requirements on release

London — The state's expansion of terrorism law into ordinary criminal damage cases should raise serious alarm. A charge sheet that never mentioned terrorism has, after the verdict, been quietly reclassified. The defendants are tried on one basis and sentenced on another, with the goalposts moved only once conviction is secured and without the jury's awareness.

This is the same pattern CAGE has documented since the introduction of counter-terrorism legislation: expansion by precedent, applied retroactively, and reserved almost exclusively for those challenging the state. Extinction Rebellion activists who caused comparable or greater property damage at Barclays HQ in 2023 faced no such reclassification. This is clear evidence that counter-terrorism legislation exists solely for use against those engaged in political dissent.

Naila Ahmed, Head of Campaigns at Cage International, said:

"It is alarming to witness the expansion of the use of the terrorism connection in other direct action cases. Judge Johnson's unprecedented and unjust ruling is now being used as the basis to justify extended prison sentences for activists, without any judicial oversight. These harsh sentences are being used as examples to try and deter others from taking direct action, rather than as a proportionate response to the case at end.

This is further evidence that these powers are political in nature and are demonstrating Britain's allegiance and commitment to the Zionist entity. These activists contributed to Barclays divesting from Elbit Systems and they should be celebrated, not brandished as terrorists."

[ENDS]