Four Palestine Action activists were sentenced to prison last week for their involvement in a 2024 raid on an Elbit Systems factory near Bristol. The sentencing has drawn public criticism as the judge ruled the criminal damage offences had a ‘terrorist connection’, requiring the court to apply this as an aggravating factor in sentencing under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The activists, Charlotte Head, Leona Kamino, Fatema Rajwani, and Samuel Corner, were convicted of criminal damage after entering the site and causing damage to property. The raid on the factory caused 1.2 million pounds in damage, including damage to 41 military assets. Corner was also convicted of grievous bodily harm (GBH) without intent.
The special custodial sentences ranged from 4 years and 200 days to 8 years and 8 months, including the imposition of an additional licence period of 1 year and terrorist notification requirements for a period of 15 years for all activists.
Leading human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield KC, and over 50 legal experts, branded this use of the Sentencing Act a ‘constitutional threat’. In an open letter, Mansfield said the state is ‘recategorising the offence without a trial’, elevating criminal damage to terrorism despite the jury never being asked to convict on such a charge. The letter went on to warn that blurring the distinction between principled direct action and terrorism is a ‘hallmark of authoritarian regimes’, threatening the fundamental rights to assembly and expression in the UK.
Amnesty International, in a policy report published before the hearing, warned that applying counter-terrorism frameworks to conscientious direct action would be ‘grossly disproportionate’. In response to the sentencing, Amnesty UK’s Chief Executive, Kerry Moscogiuru, called it a ‘dangerous’ step in an ongoing crackdown on protest.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, however, maintains that the activists were not convicted of terrorism. He argues that Parliament simply instructed judges to treat a ‘[t]errorist connection’, defined as serious damage to property to influence the government for a political cause, as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The judge also mitigated the sentences by acknowledging the defendants’ ‘exceptional positive good character’ and their motivation to prevent Palestinian suffering.
A judicial spokesperson emphasised that ‘judicial independence and impartiality are fundamental to the rule of law’ and that the judge’s role is to apply the law as it stands without ‘fear or favour’.
The spokesperson clarified that ‘judges and magistrates sentence according to the law set by parliament and the sentencing guidelines set by the independent Sentencing Council, as well as the facts of each case which may have aggravating or mitigating factors’.
