Key facts
- Four Palestine Action activists were convicted of criminal damage for their role in a raid on an Israeli-owned arms factory.
- A judge ruled their offenses had a 'terrorist connection', leading to sentences of four to eight years.
- This marks the first time direct action protesters convicted of criminal charges have been sentenced as terrorists.
- The activists' legal team plans to appeal the sentencing, citing it as 'manifestly excessive' and wrongfully applied.
- The appeal argues the 'terrorist connection' designation violates human rights conventions.
Four Palestine Action activists are set to appeal their sentencing as terrorists by a UK court for their involvement in a raid on an Israeli-owned arms factory. In May, Charlotte Head, Fatema Rajwani, Leona Kamio, and Samuel Corner were convicted of criminal damage for smashing equipment, including drones, at an Elbit Systems factory near Bristol in August 2024.
In an unprecedented ruling in June, Justice Johnson determined their offenses carried a 'terrorist connection', imposing sentences ranging from four to eight years. This marked the first time direct action protesters convicted of criminal charges were sentenced as terrorists. Throughout the trial, the defendants were reportedly barred from informing the jury of the potential terror designation or explaining their motivations for damaging weapons intended for use by Israel in Gaza.
Simon Natas, a solicitor representing the four, confirmed at a press conference that they will appeal their sentences, deeming them 'manifestly excessive' and arguing that Justice Johnson wrongfully applied the terrorist connection. Sukaina Rajwani, mother of Fatema, stated her daughter, aged 22, has already spent '10 percent of her life behind bars' and will face stringent restrictions as a terrorist prisoner, including limited, vetted contact with only 20 individuals.
Emma Kamio, mother of Leona, noted her daughter, a nursery school teacher at the time of the action, will be 50 before the 'state harassment' ends. The terror designation not only lengthens sentences but imposes decades of restrictions post-release, including barring her daughter from working with children.
The appeal challenges the judge's reliance on a financial report from Elbit Systems' insurers to determine 'serious harm'. Justice Johnson's ruling stated the defendants' actions were intended to influence the UK government and 'intimidate a section of the public'. The appeal argues this interpretation misapplies the Terrorism Act 2000, which defines terrorism as involving 'serious violence' for political, religious, or ideological causes. Natas highlighted the lack of clarity in the legislation regarding 'serious damage' and scarce case law.
Natas asserted that the activists were cleared of violence-related charges and that their intention was solely to damage weapons to prevent their deployment to Israel, not to influence the government. The appeal also contends that the 'terrorist connection scheme' conflicts with Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits imposing penalties heavier than those applicable at the time of the offense, and Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The legal team is awaiting permission to appeal and a hearing date.