Four Palestine Action activists convicted of criminal damage this month are facing double the jail term for that offence as they may be sentenced under counter-terror legislation.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were convicted on a retrial in connection with a 2024 break-in at the Elbit Systems factory near Bristol.
However, prior to their initial trial in February, Mr Justice Johnson ruled that there appeared to be a “terrorist connection” to the raid, though this was before Palestine Action was proscribed as a terror group by the government.
Johnson also ruled that the jury could not be informed of his decision, even though it could see the group sentenced under the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows for “serious damage to property” to be treated as a terrorist act if it is “designed to influence the government…or intimidate the public” for “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”.
If the court finds at sentencing that such a terrorist connection did exist, then the activists would have to serve their entire sentence in prison and could not be considered for parole until 2/3 through their term.
In contrast, non-terrorist prisoners usually serve around 40 per cent of their term before being considered for parole.
They could also be designated for life as terrorists, meaning that they would have to register any new electronic devices, bank accounts, email addresses or personal relationships with police.
Defend Our Juries, which has organised protests in support of the activists, said: “The public will be astonished to learn that in the British justice system a protester can now be convicted of criminal damage for disrupting an arms factory and then be sentenced as ‘terrorists’ without having been convicted of terror charges and with this having been kept secret from the jury.”
Meanwhile, the barrister who represented Head at the initial trial, at which jurors acquitted her of aggravated burglary and failed to reach a verdict on the criminal damage charge, has avoided a contempt of court case after clashing with Johnson during his closing statement.
The judge accused Rajiv Menon KC of disregarding his instructions by suggesting that jurors could acquit Head according to their conscience.
Johnson also claimed Menon had misled the jury by saying the prosecution had failed to rebut evidence which the judge had previously ruled irrelevant.
But the Court of Appeal blocked the case from progressing, saying that it was procedurally flawed and ruling that the contempt allegation should have either been dealt with by Johnson at the time of the trial or referred to the attorney general.
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.