As many have warned, the danger of a government using terrorist legislation against a protest movement is that it opens the doors to a more authoritarian crackdown on protest in general, AND it dilutes how terrorism is defined, wasting police time when there may be real threats to the public to consider.
When Palestine Action was proscribed in August a year ago, the vote that Yvette Cooper cynically laid before Parliament was a single one covering three groups in all. The other two groups were the ‘Maniacs Murder Cult’, linked to mass killings, and the other was the militant neo-Nazi ‘Russian Imperial Movement’.
Next month on September 4th (tbc) five activists face the prospect of sentencing as ‘terrorists’ for spraying some red paint and ‘splintering’ a few windows at a Barclays branch in Burnley, Lancashire, in August 2024 (a year BEFORE the controversial proscription of Palestine Action).
Their action was part of a long campaign by various groups calling for the bank to review its investments in fossil fuels and in Israeli arms companies. A joint report in June 2024 by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign Against The Arms Trade, and War On Want, revealed that Barclays held more than $2 billion shares in arms companies supplying Israel, including Elbit. The bank had always claimed they were never investors, but merely held share “in relation to client-driven transactions” and that they maintain an ethical policy “on a range of issues including climate change, human rights and the defence and security sector”.
Nevertheless, following a widespread campaign of vandalism at high street branches, the bank was reported to have divested its investment shareholdings in Elbit Systems just a couple of months later.
It should be stressed that the campaign comprised spraying red paint at frontages, and sometimes involved breaking windows. This was always done when banks were closed and there have never been any allegations of violence or threatening behaviour against staff, police or the public at large.
The two-week trial in June was held in front of Judge Phillip Parry at Preston Crown Court, and the five defendants – Brendon O’Hagan (28 yrs), Amanda Kelly (31 yrs), Hmeera Atiqnisar (31 yrs), Mohammed Malik (28 yrs), and Alma Yaniv (70 yrs) – were convicted of criminal damage claimed to be around £212,000 (due partly to loss of business during a temporary closure).
According to witnesses at the trial, while the jury were considering their verdicts, two jurors asked the judge whether they could acquit “according to their conscience”. Parry told them they could not, (which would appear to fly in the face of recently re-established ancient rights), and guilty verdicts were duly returned.
In an echo of the Filton trial and sentencing, the jury were never given any hint that a ‘terrorist connection’ would be applied, and in fact, earlier in the proceedings, the judge was at great pains to point out that at the time of the protest, Palestine Action had not been proscribed, so the jurors should not consider that or hold it against the defendants in any way. The action was also never part of Yvette Cooper’s decision-making process and assessment prior to proscription.
After the verdict, Judge Parry informed defence lawyers he was considering making a ‘terrorist connection’ in sentencing, and he circulated Justice Johnson’s sentencing decision which saw long jail sentences and special licence conditions applied to the Filton 4. The CPS then submitted their request for terrorism sentencing. This was the first time it had been raised.
What a terrorism connection means, is that the prisoners must serve at least two-thirds of their time and then convince a parole board they have rescinded their beliefs – in other words that there was no genocide of Palestinian people or that 2+2=5. On release they can expect up to 15 years on special licence conditions including continually informing police of any new relationships, changes of living circumstances, new electronic devices, bank accounts and so on. The slightest slip-up can result in an immediate further five-year sentence.
The precedent set by Justice Johnson’s terrorist sentencing of the Filton 4 has been widely condemned, including by UN Special Rapporteurs, Amnesty International, Liberty UK and Cage International. His persecution of defence barrister Rajiv Menon KC has been met by a huge outpouring of support and solidarity from the legal profession.
An appeal has been lodged over the Filton sentencing, but this will take some time.
As mentioned above, Barclays has been under fire from a wide range of groups over the years, among them Extinction Rebellion. It is worth noting that in January 2023, seven XR protesters were found guilty of breaking windows at the banks Canary Wharf HQ causing an alleged half a million pounds damage. There was never any suggestion of terrorism and they were all spared jail.
More than 3000 ordinary UK citizens have been arrested on terrorism charges since Yvette Cooper’s proscription of Palestine Action. After the recent High Court ruling (which appeared to suggest that the Suffragettes never caused property damage, when in fact they smashed windows, committed arson and even planted bombs in their campaign for women’s suffrage), the civil disobedience campaign is escalating. The government’s attempt to scare and deter protest doesn’t seem to be working, and is instead bringing together the highest echelons of the legal profession, a wide array of civil rights bodies, trade unions and activists, determined to resist and challenge this descent into authoritarianism.
