Key facts
- Four Palestine Action protesters were convicted of criminal damage for an incident at an Elbit Systems UK factory.
- The trial judge will determine if the offense has a terrorism connection, which could lead to significantly harsher sentencing.
- Over 50 lawyers and legal experts have signed an open letter opposing this potential sentencing, calling it a 'constitutional threat'.
- Critics argue that reclassifying the offense as terrorism without a jury trial denies the defendants the ability to explain their motivations.
Leading UK human rights lawyers have voiced strong opposition to the potential sentencing of four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, arguing it violates fundamental legal principles and poses a 'constitutional threat'. The four individuals were previously found guilty of criminal damage for an incident at an Israeli arms manufacturer's UK site in 2024.
Michael Mansfield KC, a prominent human rights barrister, is among the signatories of an open letter signed by over 50 legal professionals. The letter warns that the judge's decision to consider a terrorism connection, despite the jury not convicting them on terrorism charges, is 'wrong in principle'. Mansfield stated that this amounts to 'recategorising the offence without a trial' and that the defendants were denied the opportunity to explain their motivations to a jury.
If the judge, Mr Justice Johnson, finds a terrorism connection, the protesters could face significantly harsher sentences, including serving a larger portion of their term in prison and lifelong notification requirements to the police. The letter draws parallels to historical protest movements, asserting that blurring the lines between direct action and terrorism is characteristic of authoritarian regimes.
Professor Penny Green, another signatory, expressed shock that acts of criminal damage aimed at preventing Palestinian deaths are being treated as terror by the British state. A judicial spokesperson emphasized that judges operate with independence and impartiality, making decisions based on evidence, arguments, and the law as set by parliament and sentencing guidelines.