Five Palestine Action activists face being sentenced as terrorists after they sprayed red paint and cracked windows at a branch of Barclays bank to protest the company’s links to an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
“Sentenced as terrorists” is not what is really happening here. As I said before, when a crime carries over 2 years of prison (and property damage of 200k does) the judge can consider “terrorist connection” as an aggravating factor. They belong to Palestine Action which is considered terrorist organization in UK. This proscription was recently upheld by Court of Appeals.
They are not being sentenced for being members of Palestine Action. The court is considering “terrorist connection” aggravating factor in property damage conviction. If the aggravating factor is added it will have an impact on the conditions of their parole, not the sentence itself.
How can it be an aggravating factor if there was no terrorist connection at the time of the offence? The proscription of PA wasn’t backdated, and the vandalism happened before that, right?
Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires that the court treats your offending’s terrorist connection as an aggravating factor. That means it increases the seriousness of the offence
I will impose the shortest
custodial term that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
I hope that this case is revisited, and the sentences reduced, because there is an element of scapegoating apparent, which is not just.
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
There’s no such thing as “severity of the sentence”. They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
As with “severity of the sentence” you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s not how any of it works.
I wasn’t using legal language. By “the severity of the sentence”, I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.
They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:
I will impose the shortest custodial term that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, taking account of aggravating and mitigating features.
Then, your ad hominem response “you don’t know what you’re talking about” renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I’d advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.
You fucking legend.
So few, so vanishingly few people on internet forums remain open-minded enough to change their view, on anything even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. I like to think I’m one of these few, and now I think you are too. Good on you.
I’m a scientist by education, and so I value nothing more, intellectually, than being able to admit you have more to learn.
I couldn’t possibly have more respect for you than I do now after reading your last comment.
As an aside, I find your other comments to be really incisive, and you’ve made me see this issue in a new light. Thanks to you, I’ve read the entire judgement, and realised that these people are far from heroes, the issue isn’t black and white, and Corner probably deserves most of his sentence. Which was soothing to my anger, because this isn’t as egregious a miscarriage of justice as I previously thought. It’s still a partisan reading of the law though, in my opinion. But it doesn’t seem to overstep the bounds, just burgeon upon them.
“”" offence found to have a terrorist connection by definition in new sub-paragraph (3E), the offender will be subject to the
release provisions in section 247A of the 2003 Act (for extended sentences for offences
which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, release will be at the end of the
full custodial term; for all other sentences release will be at the discretion of the Parole
Board from the two-thirds point of the custodial term).“”"
So I believe what “terrorist connection” aggravating factor does for conviction in crimes like property damage is that you can apply for parole after 2/3 of the full sentence. From what I read it definitely doesn’t extend the sentence - the maximum sentence is still the same as maximum sentence for property damage. Not sure if the judge is forced to apply maximum sentence or not if terrorist connection is found. Can’t find any info on that.
EDIT: I read the sentencing and minimum sentence is not affected, just the parole conditions.
It would extend the time spend in prison, not the sentence. The sentence is the maximum time someone can be held in prison. This is not extended. Parole rules determine the minimal possible time someone has to spend in prison. This is what changed.
I’m clearly not defending anything here, just explaining what happened. Don’t confuse people by mixing legal terms.
Ah, you’re a world of imagination type. Sorry, I operate in real world effects, not in theoretical constructs that are totally different except for in what they actually do.
you agree with the practice of inflating the cost of crime so that any action can be considered terrorism? seems a bit much for me and backing of government oppression.
terrorism has a meaning, and is not dependent on amounts of property damage.
this is the same thing as redefining illegal immigrants as enemy combatants so you can suspend habeous corpus, and other human rights
The word “terrorist” is not merely a technical designator. It is highly emotionally charged and political. It is a word that evokes hundreds of victims in blind attacks on trains or on buildings and aeroplanes. It evokes fanaticism and destructiveness, frothing hatred and irrational bloodlust. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” Terrorists are the villains in every movie ever. In the wider society, a “terrorist connection” is a connection to all that.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped the Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn’t have.
And even if this government gets all the benefits of the doubt (personally I really don’t think they should) because they are trying their best to balance between impossible political attractors (personally I think they are just enablers of a genocidal apartheid regime for political expediency), the next one or the one after the next one will not hesitate to use the Big Scary Word not as a technical designator but as a political sledgehammer.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped The Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn’t have.
I think it is important to to know what’s happening and not just repeat narrative coming from one side. People argued with me that “terrorist connection” means people are being convicted of additional crimes without the knowledge of a jury. Now you’re claiming the government is calling them terrorists while the “terrorist organization” proscription for Palestine Action was upheld by Court of Appeals. Palestine Action is using the threat of serious damage to property to intimidate people and advance ideological cause. They are publishing a "target map: https://targetmap.org/map. This is pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization according to UK laws.
We all would like UK government to sanction Israel but few governments in the world are willing to do that. Groups like Palestine Action try to change the status quo by committing crimes.I don’t think terrorist organization proscription is an overreach by the government here. I think that instead of being intimidated by it we should admit that yes, in this case, we do support the terrorist.
That’s a circular definition: the Labour government passed laws that defined Palestine Action as terrorists so therefore they are terrorist because the courts said they fit the description of the laws.
The other thing that you seem to have forfeited is a sense of proportionality. So, if you want to go around declaring yourself …a “terrorist sympathizer”, don’t let me stop you. I’ll keep on insisting that Palestine Action should have never been proscribed in the first place. All of the craziness follows from that first moment of Labour stupidity and overreach.
Ok, that’s fair. For me the definition used for the proscription doesn’t sound like something tailor made to fit Palestine Action nor does it look like a tool for squashing dissidents. I would say that is a group of people operated covertly to intimidate businesses supporting Palestine (for example damaging businesses providing relief to Palestine and hosting a map with targets, encouraging people to do the same) I wouldn’t hesitate to call that terrorism. I think it’s fine if you’re worried about being called a “terrorist sympathizer”. I don’t really mind that. Palestine Action is committing crimes to achieve their goals and I’m not going to pretend they don’t.
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
I don’t have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it’s exactly what I said here. I don’t see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn’t on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as “civil disobedience” rather than “direct action”, which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.
“Sentenced as terrorists” is not what is really happening here. As I said before, when a crime carries over 2 years of prison (and property damage of 200k does) the judge can consider “terrorist connection” as an aggravating factor. They belong to Palestine Action which is considered terrorist organization in UK. This proscription was recently upheld by Court of Appeals.
They are not being sentenced for being members of Palestine Action. The court is considering “terrorist connection” aggravating factor in property damage conviction. If the aggravating factor is added it will have an impact on the conditions of their parole, not the sentence itself.
How can it be an aggravating factor if there was no terrorist connection at the time of the offence? The proscription of PA wasn’t backdated, and the vandalism happened before that, right?
INAL but I think that’s why they are not being charged with terrorism, only terrorist connection is applied.
From the judgement:
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
I hope that this case is revisited, and the sentences reduced, because there is an element of scapegoating apparent, which is not just.
There’s no such thing as “severity of the sentence”. They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
As with “severity of the sentence” you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s not how any of it works.
I wasn’t using legal language. By “the severity of the sentence”, I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.
A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:
Then, your ad hominem response “you don’t know what you’re talking about” renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I’d advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.
You’re right. They did add 2 years to the sentence because of various aggravating factors, terrorist connected being one of them. Good to know.
You fucking legend.
So few, so vanishingly few people on internet forums remain open-minded enough to change their view, on anything even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. I like to think I’m one of these few, and now I think you are too. Good on you.
I’m a scientist by education, and so I value nothing more, intellectually, than being able to admit you have more to learn.
I couldn’t possibly have more respect for you than I do now after reading your last comment.
As an aside, I find your other comments to be really incisive, and you’ve made me see this issue in a new light. Thanks to you, I’ve read the entire judgement, and realised that these people are far from heroes, the issue isn’t black and white, and Corner probably deserves most of his sentence. Which was soothing to my anger, because this isn’t as egregious a miscarriage of justice as I previously thought. It’s still a partisan reading of the law though, in my opinion. But it doesn’t seem to overstep the bounds, just burgeon upon them.
Anyway, thanks.
That 200k damage doesn’t even hold up
Where did you get this idea from? Aggravating and mitigating factors specifically apply to the length of the sentence in UK law.
I may be wrong but https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
“”" offence found to have a terrorist connection by definition in new sub-paragraph (3E), the offender will be subject to the release provisions in section 247A of the 2003 Act (for extended sentences for offences which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, release will be at the end of the full custodial term; for all other sentences release will be at the discretion of the Parole Board from the two-thirds point of the custodial term).“”"
So I believe what “terrorist connection” aggravating factor does for conviction in crimes like property damage is that you can apply for parole after 2/3 of the full sentence. From what I read it definitely doesn’t extend the sentence - the maximum sentence is still the same as maximum sentence for property damage. Not sure if the judge is forced to apply maximum sentence or not if terrorist connection is found. Can’t find any info on that.
EDIT: I read the sentencing and minimum sentence is not affected, just the parole conditions.
You don’t see how changes like that, extending the minimum time to be considered for parole (I.e released), would in practice extend a sentence?
It would extend the time spend in prison, not the sentence. The sentence is the maximum time someone can be held in prison. This is not extended. Parole rules determine the minimal possible time someone has to spend in prison. This is what changed.
I’m clearly not defending anything here, just explaining what happened. Don’t confuse people by mixing legal terms.
Ah, you’re a world of imagination type. Sorry, I operate in real world effects, not in theoretical constructs that are totally different except for in what they actually do.
you agree with the practice of inflating the cost of crime so that any action can be considered terrorism? seems a bit much for me and backing of government oppression.
terrorism has a meaning, and is not dependent on amounts of property damage.
this is the same thing as redefining illegal immigrants as enemy combatants so you can suspend habeous corpus, and other human rights
Where in my comment did I say I agree or disagree with any of it?
If you would understand my comment you would realize that is pretty much exactly what I said.
‘ they are not being sentenced as terrorists, just sentenced as committing terroristic actions’ is an argument without purpose.
the discussion is around the inflation of the crime to scare people from pushing against what is happening.
Ok, so you don’t care about the legal process that’s being used here. That’s cool. Personally I like being informed and find it interesting.
Thank you for the technical clarification.
The word “terrorist” is not merely a technical designator. It is highly emotionally charged and political. It is a word that evokes hundreds of victims in blind attacks on trains or on buildings and aeroplanes. It evokes fanaticism and destructiveness, frothing hatred and irrational bloodlust. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” Terrorists are the villains in every movie ever. In the wider society, a “terrorist connection” is a connection to all that.
So splitting the legal hairs here is at best irrelevant. We live in a society not a courtroom. The government has slapped the Big Scary Word on a thing it shouldn’t have.
And even if this government gets all the benefits of the doubt (personally I really don’t think they should) because they are trying their best to balance between impossible political attractors (personally I think they are just enablers of a genocidal apartheid regime for political expediency), the next one or the one after the next one will not hesitate to use the Big Scary Word not as a technical designator but as a political sledgehammer.
I think it is important to to know what’s happening and not just repeat narrative coming from one side. People argued with me that “terrorist connection” means people are being convicted of additional crimes without the knowledge of a jury. Now you’re claiming the government is calling them terrorists while the “terrorist organization” proscription for Palestine Action was upheld by Court of Appeals. Palestine Action is using the threat of serious damage to property to intimidate people and advance ideological cause. They are publishing a "target map: https://targetmap.org/map. This is pretty much the definition of a terrorist organization according to UK laws.
We all would like UK government to sanction Israel but few governments in the world are willing to do that. Groups like Palestine Action try to change the status quo by committing crimes.I don’t think terrorist organization proscription is an overreach by the government here. I think that instead of being intimidated by it we should admit that yes, in this case, we do support the terrorist.
That’s a circular definition: the Labour government passed laws that defined Palestine Action as terrorists so therefore they are terrorist because the courts said they fit the description of the laws.
The other thing that you seem to have forfeited is a sense of proportionality. So, if you want to go around declaring yourself …a “terrorist sympathizer”, don’t let me stop you. I’ll keep on insisting that Palestine Action should have never been proscribed in the first place. All of the craziness follows from that first moment of Labour stupidity and overreach.
Ok, that’s fair. For me the definition used for the proscription doesn’t sound like something tailor made to fit Palestine Action nor does it look like a tool for squashing dissidents. I would say that is a group of people operated covertly to intimidate businesses supporting Palestine (for example damaging businesses providing relief to Palestine and hosting a map with targets, encouraging people to do the same) I wouldn’t hesitate to call that terrorism. I think it’s fine if you’re worried about being called a “terrorist sympathizer”. I don’t really mind that. Palestine Action is committing crimes to achieve their goals and I’m not going to pretend they don’t.
You might want to read the judgement then, because Johnson has a very different understanding - he very specifically names the Suffragettes as not being terrorists, despite their use of public and personal bombings and arson attacks to intimidate and influence policy. The law is not being applied equally, it is being used as a bludgeon against those who oppose genocide.
I did read it:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/R-v-Charlotte-Head-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
I don’t have that much time so I read the justification for terrorist connection aggravating factor and it’s exactly what I said here. I don’t see anything about Suffragettes in there. Can you point me to the part that talks about it?
Sorry, rereading I was completely unclear about which case I was refering to, and got my conflicts of interest mixed up - I meant the proscription judgement (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv) and Johnson wasn’t on this panel, his judgement is just based on it. The Suffragettes actions are specifically brought up as “civil disobedience” rather than “direct action”, which is a distinction the proscription kinda hinges on.