An attack on a Barclays bank by five people linked to Palestine Action will not be treated as terrorism when they are sentenced, a judge has ruled.
The five smiled with relief and were hugged and cheered by supporters as the ruling was given at Preston Crown Court on Friday.
It means all five will still be sentenced next month for criminal damage in the attack costing £200,000.
But Judge Robert Altham, the Recorder of Preston, ruled that section 69 of the Sentencing Act, establishing a terror link to the criminal damage offence, did not apply – so the defendants will face lesser sentences when they are dealt with.
Altham said while the damage was substantial, it was not of the size of other attacks or on a sensitive property, such as an arms firm, as has happened during previous Palestine Action incidents.
He said: “For section 69 to apply, the damage must amount to serious damage.
“The threshold is a high one, the quality of the act must also be considered.
“I agree the monetary value is not the only factor. The nature and sensitivity of the property damaged is also relevant.
“Whilst the damage is undoubtedly significant, I’m not satisfied it amounts to serious damage for the purposes of the Terrorism Act.
“Section 69 does not apply in this case.”
Around 100 supporters, many waving the Palestinian flag, cheered and banged drums on the steps outside as the defendants left court.
Palestine Action was not proscribed as a terror group at the time of the attack.
The group targeted the Barclays branch on St James’s Street in Burnley, Lancashire, on August 5 2024.
Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Mohammed Malik, 26, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted of criminal damage in June after a trial at Preston Crown Court.
All will be sentenced on September 4.
They claimed the 2 am attack was designed to pressure Barclays into withdrawing financial support for weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems, a firm based in Israel.
Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July 2025 and has been behind a string of direct action protests targeting Elbit Systems due to the firm’s links to the Israeli military.
In May this year, a judge at Woolwich Crown Court ruled that Palestine Action activists who caused £1.2 million of damage in a raid on Elbit’s factory near Bristol should be sentenced as terrorists.
All the defendants in the Barclays trial, apart from Yaniv, were either closely linked to Palestine Action or full members; they had attended a training session on direct action and the attack on the bank was part of a wider campaign by the group to exert pressure over its financial ties to Elbit.
They were masked and armed with hammers, filming their actions to be distributed publicly and causing damage valued at £212,805.14.
If sentenced as terrorists, the five would have faced longer jail terms, lost the right to automatic early release and spent an extended period on licence and subject to police monitoring.
Earlier, Pete Weatherby KC, representing O’Hagan, said if the defendants were to be sentenced as terrorists, it would “lead to Draconian sentences with dire consequences”.
Weatherby said what they had done, breaking windows “in the dead of night” with a hammer, daubing slogans with paint, dropping leaflets about Palestine at the scene, was “very far from terrorism” and what parliament meant by passing terrorism laws, adding: “Ordinary criminal law is sufficient to cover such convictions.”
“The political motivation was to do with what the defendants consider, and many agree with them, the genocide in Gaza.”
After the ruling, the defendants, known as the Barclays Five, said in a statement: “We are extremely relieved that the court has seen sense and decided not to sentence us as terrorists. This should never have been an option.
“We were on trial for charges of criminal damage, for damaging some windows and spraying red paint on a Barclays branch. At no point during the trial were we, or the jury, informed that, if convicted, we could face being sentenced as terrorists.
“The state is attempting to equate property damage to the Israeli war machine with terrorism.
“It began with Justice Johnson’s decision to sentence four Palestine Action activists as terrorists for destroying Israeli quadcopter drones which otherwise would have been used to mass murder Palestinians.
“His ruling has set a dangerous precedent, which was used by the court to consider sentencing us as terrorists, and could be used to impose terror sentences on hundreds more protesters, despite not being convicted of any terror charges.
“The proscription of Palestine Action, the arrests of over 3,500 people under the Terrorism Act for holding signs, and the sentencing of direct action activists as terrorists are all tools being used by the state to protect the Israeli weapons industry and continue its role in the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
“The use of counter-terror powers against direct action for Palestine came after extensive lobbying by the Israeli government, Elbit Systems, pro-Israel lobby groups and politicians with vested interests.
“The state is doing everything possible to deter direct action for Palestine precisely because it has been so effective against the Israeli war machine, but we could never regret trying to stop a genocide.”
Ruth Ehrlich, director of external relations at civil rights group Liberty, said: “We welcome the news that a terror connection won’t be made to this case.
“However, the fact that a terror connection could even be considered highlights deep flaws in the UK’s laws, and is likely to have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to exercise their right to protest and stand up for what they believe in.
“When it’s not clear what counts as terrorism, public trust collapses and without trust, counter-terror laws simply won’t work.”
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.