Five activists associated with the direct-action group Palestine Action have been convicted of criminal damage following an attack on a Barclays Bank branch in Burnley, Lancashire. The case has escalated into a significant legal flashpoint after a judge indicated that sentencing will include a determination on whether the offenses possess a “terrorist connection,” a designation that could drastically increase the penalties faced by the defendants.
The defendants—Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70—were found guilty of breaking windows and splashing red paint across the exterior of the bank. While the physical act was categorized as criminal damage, the judicial focus has shifted toward the motivation behind the act and whether it meets the statutory threshold for terrorism under United Kingdom law.
The Incident in Burnley
The convictions stem from a coordinated action targeting the Barclays branch in Burnley. According to reports from The Guardian, the activists engaged in a “direct action” tactic common to Palestine Action, which involves the use of red paint to symbolize blood and the breaking of glass to signal a breach of corporate security.
The activists targeted the bank as part of a wider campaign to pressure financial institutions to divest from companies that supply the Israeli military. During the incident, the group shattered windows and covered the building’s facade in red paint, causing temporary disruptions to bank services. No injuries were reported during the protest, and the damage was limited to the physical structure of the branch.
Following the incident, the five individuals were arrested and charged with criminal damage. While the jury returned guilty verdicts on the charges of damage, the subsequent legal proceedings have moved into a phase where the intent and political affiliation of the actors are being scrutinized through the lens of national security legislation.
Why the Terrorist Designation Matters
The judge’s indication that he will consider whether the offenses have a “terrorist connection” represents a critical escalation in the legal proceedings. In the UK, the distinction between a political crime (such as criminal damage during a protest) and a terrorist act is not merely semantic; it fundamentally alters the sentencing guidelines and the long-term legal status of the convicted.
If a judge determines that an act was committed for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause, and that the act was intended to intimidate the public or coerce a government or international organization, it can be classified under terrorism statutes. Such a designation typically allows for significantly longer prison sentences than standard criminal damage charges.
Furthermore, a conviction linked to terrorism can trigger a range of administrative consequences, including enhanced surveillance, restrictions on travel, and increased scrutiny from intelligence services. For the five activists, this means the court is no longer simply weighing the cost of broken glass and paint removal, but is instead evaluating the ideological framework of their protest.
Background and Context: The Campaign Against Barclays
Palestine Action has spent years targeting Barclays, alleging that the bank provides financial services to companies involved in the manufacture of weapons used by the Israeli military in the Palestinian territories. The group utilizes “direct action”—a strategy of physical intervention designed to cause financial loss or reputational damage to the target—to force a change in corporate policy.
This Burnley incident is part of a broader pattern of activity. Palestine Action has previously targeted factories and corporate offices across the UK, often using similar tactics of paint-spraying and equipment sabotage. The group argues that their actions are a necessary response to what they describe as complicity in war crimes.
The UK government and various law enforcement agencies have increasingly viewed these tactics not as traditional civil disobedience, but as a systemic threat to corporate infrastructure. This shift in perception has led to a more aggressive application of the law, moving from public order offenses to more severe criminal and security-related charges.
Analysis: The Expansion of Terrorism Statutes
Analysis: The judge’s intention to consider a terrorist connection reflects a concerning trend in the UK judiciary toward the “securitization” of protest. By applying terrorism legislation to non-violent property damage, the state effectively reclassifies political dissent as a national security threat. This creates a legal environment where the motive for a crime—specifically the desire to influence government or corporate policy—becomes a primary driver for harsher sentencing, rather than the actual harm caused.
Analysis: The use of red paint and window-breaking is a calculated symbolic act. While the financial cost to a global entity like Barclays is negligible, the legal cost to the activists is immense. The disparity between the damage caused (property) and the potential sentence (terrorism-linked imprisonment) suggests a judicial strategy aimed at deterring direct-action movements through extreme legal risk.
What to Watch Next
The legal community and human rights observers are now focusing on the sentencing hearing. The primary point of contention will be the legal arguments regarding the definition of “terrorism.” Defense counsel for the five activists are expected to argue that the actions were a form of political expression and civil disobedience, lacking the intent to cause “serious harm” or “danger to life” typically associated with terrorism.
Observers will also be watching for the judge’s specific reasoning. If the court rules that targeting a bank to influence foreign policy constitutes a terrorist act, it could set a precedent that expands the scope of terrorism laws to include a wide array of environmental and political activists who engage in property damage.
Conclusion
The case of the Burnley five highlights a growing tension between the right to protest and the state’s desire to protect corporate assets through national security laws. As the court decides whether to apply the label of “terrorist” to these activists, the ruling will serve as a bellwether for the future of political activism in the United Kingdom. The outcome will determine whether the act of splashing paint on a bank is viewed as a criminal nuisance or a threat to the state.
Sources:
The Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/27/palestine-action-activists-face-being-sentenced-terrorists-damage-barclays-bank-burnley
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Guardian International — source
