Full Breakdown
UK Court Considers Terrorist Designation for Palestine Action Activists Convicted of Criminal Damage
5/13/2026, 1:05:00 AM
Convictions and Potential Terrorist Sentencing
Four members of the activist group Palestine Action—Charlotte Head (29), Samuel Corner (23), Leona Kamio (30) and Fatema Rajwani (21)—were found guilty of criminal damage at the Elbit Systems UK plant near Bristol on 6 August 2024. The Woolwich Crown Court jury was not told that Mr Justice Johnson had pre-determined a “terrorist connection”. Reporting restrictions were lifted on 12 May 2026, revealing that the judge may add a terrorist designation at sentencing on 12 June 2026. If applied, the defendants would serve the full term in prison and be recorded as terrorists for life.
Background: Protest, Proscription and Legal Context
Palestine Action staged the raid to damage weapons it said were destined for the Israeli military in Gaza. The group was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July 2025, but the High Court ruled the proscription unlawful in February 2026; the government has appealed. The judge’s pre-trial ruling invoked s1(1)(b) and s1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, allowing a “serious property damage” clause to be treated as a terrorist offence, and s69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for adding a terrorist label at sentencing.
Timeline of Key Developments
- 6 Aug 2024 – Raid on Elbit plant, £1 million damage, police officer injured.
- Mar 2025 – Pre-trial ruling finds “terrorist connection”.
- 21 Apr 2025 – Judge restricts defence evidence on motivations and Elbit’s activities.
- Feb 2026 – High Court declares the July 2025 proscription unlawful.
- 12 May 2026 – Reporting restrictions lifted; terrorist-connection ruling disclosed.
- 12 Jun 2026 – Sentencing hearing scheduled.
Defendants and Judicial Actors
The four convicted activists were joined in the original trial by Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin, who were acquitted of criminal damage. Rajiv Menon KC acted for the defence. Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, has publicly criticised the process. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Johnson, issued orders limiting the defence’s ability to discuss Elbit’s role in Gaza or the activists’ motivations.
Data and Statistics
- Approximate damage: £1 million.
- Remand time: 18 months (Corner 21 months).
- Convictions: 4 of criminal damage; Corner also convicted of grievous bodily harm for fracturing a police sergeant’s spine.
- Acquittals: 2 of criminal damage; earlier acquittals on aggravated burglary and violent disorder.
Why It Matters
The case could set a precedent for treating protest-related property damage as terrorism, extending sentences, imposing lifelong monitoring, and influencing future direct-action campaigns. It also raises questions about the transparency of jury proceedings when sentencing criteria are concealed.
Official Statements & Responses
Mr Justice Johnson affirmed that influencing the Israeli government was a relevant factor under the Terrorism Act, while the High Court’s February ruling invalidated the government’s proscription order. The government’s appeal remains pending.
Criticism & Opposition
Defend Our Juries described the process as a “stitch-up” that concealed the terrorist label from jurors. Huda Ammori called the secret ruling “outrageous” and urged mobilisation against it. Activists argued that the restrictions prevented a full presentation of their lawful-excuse defence.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The proscription order is simultaneously deemed unlawful and under appeal, leaving its status unclear at sentencing. The legal definition of “serious property damage” under s1(2)(b) remains undefined, creating uncertainty about the threshold for a terrorist designation.
Verbatim Quotes
- “On s1(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, Rajiv Menon KC and others strongly argued that influencing government was not the purpose of the action - the purpose of the action was to damage weapons and save lives. I accept that this was one motivating factor - but that does not mean that another purpose was not to damage property to be made available to the Israeli government and thereby influence the Israeli government.” — Mr Justice Johnson
- “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.” — Defend Our Juries spokesperson
- “ Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, who defeated the government’s proscription case at the high court in February, told Novara Media: “The judge kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage which the jury decided four were guilty of.” — Huda Ammori, co-founder, Palestine Action
- “This is not everything that I’d like to tell you, but I’m so scared of the consequences of saying something I’m not permitted to, that I hope this is enough.” — Leona Kamio, activist
What’s Next
The sentencing hearing on 12 June 2026 will determine whether the terrorist label is applied. The outcome of the government’s appeal on the proscription order is expected before or shortly after sentencing, potentially shaping the legal landscape for future protest actions.
