Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Palestine Action Activists Sentenced as Terrorists for Elbit Factory Damage

Four Palestine Action activists have been sentenced as terrorists for extensive damage caused to an Israeli arms manufacturer's UK factory. The judge ruled their actions were intended to intimidate the UK government and a section of the public.

  • Four Palestine Action activists were found guilty of criminal damage at an Elbit Systems UK factory in Gloucestershire.
  • Mr Justice Johnson ruled their actions constituted a 'terrorist connection' under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act.
  • The raid caused an estimated £1.2 million in damage, including to 41 military assets.
  • One activist, Samuel Corner, was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent for striking a police officer.
  • The 'terrorist connection' ruling means harsher sentences and lifelong police notification requirements for the defendants.

Four Palestine Action activists, convicted of criminal damage at an Israeli arms manufacturer's UK factory, are to be sentenced as terrorists following a ruling by Mr Justice Johnson. The decision, made during a sentencing hearing on Friday, marks a significant development in how protest-related damage is legally classified in the UK.

Samuel Corner, 23, Charlotte Head, 30, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were found guilty last month in connection with a 2024 break-in at the Elbit Systems UK site in Gloucestershire. The court heard that the raid resulted in an estimated £1.2 million of damage, affecting 41 military assets, including £395,056 of damage to six units within an unnamed drone system and other unmanned aerial vehicles. Corner was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent for striking Sergeant Kate Evans with a sledgehammer during the incident.

In announcing his finding of a 'terrorist connection' under section 69 of the Sentencing Act, Mr Justice Johnson stated: "I am sure that each defendant’s offence of criminal damage involved serious damage to property, was designed to intimidate the UK government and a section of the public [Elbit employees and those of other businesses linked to Elbit] and was for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause." He noted that the defendants' actions, while stemming from conscience, would be considered during sentencing.

The defence argued against the 'terrorist connection' classification, with Rajiv Menon KC, representing Head, describing it as unprecedented for a non-violent offence and an "invitation to chilling, creeping authoritarianism." Mira Hammad KC, representing Kamio, highlighted that the defendants were initially arrested on suspicion of terrorism but not charged, suggesting a deliberate decision was made not to present a terrorism case to a jury. Tom Wainwright KC, representing Corner, warned that such a finding could retrospectively label historical protest movements, like the suffragettes or Greenham Common women, as terrorist organisations.

The 'terrorist connection' finding carries severe implications for the four individuals. They will face harsher sentences, serve a greater proportion of their prison terms, and be subject to lifelong notification requirements to the police regarding changes in their personal circumstances. Sergeant Kate Evans provided an emotional witness statement, detailing the profound and lasting impact of the incident on her physical health, mental wellbeing, and career, stating that Corner showed no remorse for striking her.

The ruling comes amidst ongoing public debate, with approximately 500 protesters gathering outside Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London, many holding placards in support of Palestine Action. Over 70 arrests were made in connection with alleged support for the organisation, which remains proscribed under the Terrorism Act pending a Court of Appeal judgment on the lawfulness of the ban. The case highlights the complex legal and social challenges surrounding protest, direct action, and the definition of terrorism in contemporary Britain.

Source: Woolwich Crown Court

Why this matters: This ruling sets a precedent for how protest actions involving significant property damage, particularly those with a political or ideological motivation, could be prosecuted in the UK. It could influence future legal interpretations of direct action and terrorism.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This case could affect the legal landscape for protests and direct action in the UK, potentially leading to more severe penalties for those involved in similar activities, even if not directly violent. It also raises questions about the definition of terrorism in a domestic context.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.