Palestine Action Barclays attack not terrorism, Preston judge rules
A judge at Preston Crown Court has ruled that five Palestine Action members who caused £200,000 of damage to a Barclays branch in Burnley will not be sentenced as terrorists.
Burnley Barclays attack: terror sentencing rules out for Palestine Action five
A judge at Preston Crown Court has ruled that five Palestine Action members who caused £200,000 of damage to a Barclays branch in Burnley will not face terrorism sentencing, bbc.co.uk reports.
Judge Robert Altham, the Recorder of Preston, determined that section 69 of the Sentencing Act — which would establish a terror link to the criminal damage offence — did not apply to the case. The ruling was met with cheers and embraces from roughly 100 supporters gathered outside the court, many waving Palestinian flags and banging drums.
The five defendants — Brendon O'Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, Mohammed Malik, 28, and Alma Yaniv, 70 — will now be sentenced on 4 September at Preston Crown Court on charges of criminal damage alone, and will face lesser penalties as a result.
Attack carried out in August 2024
The group targeted the Barclays branch on St James's Street in Burnley in the early hours of 5 August 2024, at around 02:00 BST. Masked and armed with hammers, they smashed windows, daubed slogans with paint and dropped leaflets at the scene. The total damage was assessed at £212,805.14. They filmed their actions for public distribution.
Palestine Action claimed the attack was intended to pressure Barclays into cutting financial ties with Elbit Systems, a weapons manufacturer the group alleged had sold military components to Israel for use in Gaza.
At the time of the offences, Palestine Action had not yet been proscribed as a terrorist organisation, meaning membership and support of the group were not illegal. The organisation was formally proscribed in July 2025.
Judge: damage did not meet the threshold
Judge Altham acknowledged that the damage was significant but concluded it fell short of the legal bar required to trigger terrorism sentencing provisions.
"The threshold is a high one," he said. "The quality of the act must also be considered. The nature and sensitivity of the property damaged is also relevant. Whilst the damage is undoubtedly significant, I'm not satisfied it amounts to serious damage for the purposes of the Terrorism Act."
He contrasted the Burnley attack with previous Palestine Action incidents, including a raid on an arms facility — a category of target he described as more sensitive property. "Section 69 does not apply in this case," Altham concluded.
Defence: "very far from terrorism"
Pete Weatherby KC, representing O'Hagan, had argued prior to the ruling that applying terror sentencing would "lead to draconian sentences with dire consequences." He described what the defendants had done — breaking windows in the early hours, painting slogans, distributing leaflets — as "very far from terrorism."
"Ordinary criminal law is sufficient to cover such convictions," Weatherby said, adding that the defendants' political motivation related to "what the defendants consider, and many agree with them, the genocide in Gaza."
The five told the court they had no knowledge their case could be treated under terrorism provisions until after they were found guilty in June.
Contrast with Bristol ruling
The Preston decision stands in contrast to a ruling issued in May at Woolwich Crown Court, where a judge determined that Palestine Action activists responsible for £1.2m of damage at Elbit's factory near Bristol should be sentenced as terrorists.
All five defendants in the Burnley case, with the exception of Yaniv, were either full members of Palestine Action or closely linked to the group. They had attended a training session on direct action and the Barclays attack formed part of a broader campaign targeting the bank's financial relationship with Elbit Systems.
Had terrorism sentencing applied, the five would have faced longer custodial terms, lost entitlement to automatic early release, and been subject to an extended licence period with ongoing police monitoring. All five are due before Preston Crown Court on 4 September.
Source: The Sun