Four Palestine Action activists have been sentenced to a combined total of more than 25 years in prison, after a judge ruled that they could be treated as terrorists.
Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani were convicted of criminal damage last month in relation to a raid against an Israeli arms factory in Bristol in 2024.
At their sentencing hearing at Woolwich Crown Court today, Judge Johnson agreed to apply a “terrorism connection” to the case under the Sentencing Act. Head and Kamio were given six years, Rajwani received five years and eight months, and Corner was sentenced to eight years and eight months. Gasps could be heard from the public gallery as the sentences were delivered, as some family members cried. They pounded the windows of the gallery as the defendants were led out.
Hundreds of protesters were also gathered outside, and could be heard chanting throughout the day from inside the courthouse. During the hearing, defence lawyers accused the prosecution of submitting key evidence “at the 59th minute of the 11th hour”.
That evidence related to how the defendants allegedly smashed 40 military assets including over a dozen drones, causing over £1.2m worth of damage.
Defence counsel said the submission allowed no time to review the report and admitting it as evidence would amount to “a gross affront to the integrity of the criminal justice system”. What the court heard That evidence – a witness statement from a consultant who assessed what Elbit’s insurance company was required to pay after the raid – was submitted to the court just eight days before the hearing.
It marked the first time that an assessment of the damage at the factory was submitted from a witness that was not anonymous and was, therefore, potentially admissible.
Defence counsel Tom Wainwright explained that the report had been submitted so late that he had not even had the opportunity to discuss it with his client, Samuel Corner.
“It would be wholly wrong and unfair for my Lord to allow the prosecution to rely on this highly contentious evidence for sentencing purposes and admit it for the purposes of determining the value of the damage caused”, said Menon.
Judge Johnson nonetheless accepted the evidence as admissible but said he would only use it to form a narrow view of the damage incurred at the factory.
The latter half of the hearing focussed on how the word “serious” is properly defined with reference to the “serious damage to property” clause of the Terrorism Act.
Defence lawyers argued that the term “serious” was intended by parliament to imply something “sinister” such as causing “excessive fear” or “harm” towards persons.
Menon also raised concerns that there is a pattern of courts finding “terrorism connection” in cases involving minorities or those supporting them, but not white supremacists.
Neither Thomas Mair, the neo-Nazi murderer of British MP Jo Cox, nor Thomas McKenna, who was procuring firearms to provoke a “race war” were given criminal convictions with a “terrorism connection”, he noted.
“So apparently, stockpiling weapons in preparation for a race war against Muslims and immigrants does not amount to an act of terrorism”, Menon declared to the court. RELATED Revealed: How Britain weaponised terrorism laws against activists They include causing “serious damage to property” for political reasons with the aim of influencing a government, international organisation, or sector of the public.
He found that “serious damage to property” was caused to Elbit’s factory in Bristol.
This damage extended to “very many individual items of advanced technological equipment as well as to the fabric of the building”, Johnson said, adding that the evidence provided late to the court shows “more than £1m paid out by insurers”.
It was unnecessary to determine “precise economic value of damage” as he was “sure it amounted to serious damage”, he continued.
Johnson further ruled that the protest action was not designed to influence the Israeli government.
However, he said it was intended to influence the UK government as well as a sector of the public defined as employees of and companies linked to Elbit Systems.
There was a “strategy of carrying out actions against Elbit and businesses linked to it in order to intimidate it into ceasing operations or cause the government to prevent it from operating”, Johnson said.
He was also “sure” that the action was for the purpose of “advancing a political or ideological cause” in line with the defendants’ beliefs surrounding Israel and Palestine.
In concluding his verdict, Johnson said: “I am sure each of the defendants’ offences involved serious damage to property, was designed to influence the UK government and to intimidate a section of the public, and was for the purpose of advancing a political cause”. Major concerns The ruling comes amid major concerns surrounding the weaponisation of terrorism laws against pro-Palestine activists.
One of the UK’s leading human rights lawyers, Michael Mansfield KC, said before the hearing that sentencing protesters as terrorists would be a “constitutional threat”.
Mansfield was among a group of 50 lawyers and legal experts to write an open letter which stated: “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them.
“And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists”.
The letter continued: “The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged”.
Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell also signed a letter condemning this “unjust” and “cruel” use of terrorism laws in advance of the hearing.
Defence lawyers are expected to appeal this decision.
The post Palestine Action activists sentenced as terrorists appeared first on Declassified UK .