terrorism enhancements – Four Palestine solidarity activists convicted only of criminal damage were sentenced with “terrorist connection” enhancements in the first British case of its kind, setting a precedent that could expand how protest-related offenses are treated as terrorism.
On the day four Palestine solidarity activists learned their fate. demonstrators outside Woolwich Crown Court held up signs in support of Palestine Action even as police arrests continued. For the defendants inside. the outcome was stark: they were not convicted of any terrorism offense—yet the judge still applied terrorism-related sentencing enhancements tied to “criminal damage.”.
Justice Jeremy Johnson handed down the terrorism enhancement at sentencing to four UK-based activists for damaging military drones and other equipment at an Elbit Systems UK factory in 2024. The Elbit company. described in the case reporting as Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. has provided the vast majority of the drones used in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. according to the source material.
The sentence was described by civil liberties groups and the activists’ supporters as a legal watershed. The source says it is the first time in Britain anyone has faced terrorism enhancements at sentencing without actually being convicted of terrorist offenses. It is also said to be the first time that “criminal damage” convictions have been classified as terrorism.
The four defendants are affiliated with the Palestine Action network and were among a group described as the “Filton 25” arrested in relation to the Elbit factory incident. The source says the defendants have already been in detention for over two years. and they now face an additional five years in prison for criminal damage with a “terrorist connection.” One defendant also received a further three-year sentence for striking a police officer during the incident.
Critics say the outcome is especially striking when compared with how the UK has handled violent unrest in other cases. The source points to a 30-year-old man in Manchester in 2024 who kicked and punched a Black man in the face amid an anti-immigrant race riot. The source says he was sentenced to three years and was described by the presiding judge as a “violent racist. ” but was not labeled a terrorist. nor were any of his fellow rioters labeled as terrorists.
The legal mechanics, as portrayed in the source material, are what make the verdict feel like a turning point. The jury convicted the activists on criminal damage charges. But the source says the jurors were not told that. by finding them guilty of the specific criminal acts. they were also opening the door to “hefty terror enhancements” by the judge at sentencing.
The judge also imposed strict limits on what the defendants could tell the jury during trial. The source says they were not permitted to tell the jury their actions were motivated by a desire to save Palestinian lives and prevent greater crimes of mass slaughter. and they could not mention the genocide in Gaza or Elbit’s role in it.
Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, criticized the decision in a statement. The source quotes her saying: “Criminal damage has never been treated as terrorism within the UK justice system before. and it is completely disproportionate to do so because the offence occurred at a protest.” Moscogiuri added that terrorism-related restrictions “stay with a person for the rest of their life. ” and she warned: “We should all be worried about what this means for other individuals taking direct action in protest at a genocide or any other issue.” She also called the sentencing a “new new low in the ongoing crackdown against protest across the UK.”.
The quote from the Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori. also preserved in the source. frames the case as a test aimed at changing how courts treat protest. Ammori said: “This is the first case. and therefore the test case. for trying to convict activists as terrorists using a manipulated court process.”.
Beyond the prison terms, the source says the terrorism labeling will subject the defendants to at least 15 years of terrorist notification requirements, including informing the police of personal and financial details and travel plans.
The sentencing lands against a broader backdrop of enforcement against Palestine Action itself. The source says the group has faced extraordinary crackdowns in the UK. including a government proscription under the Terrorism Act that makes supporting the group a criminal offense. It says a British High Court ruled in February that the proscription was unlawful. but the ban remains in place as the government appeals.
In that atmosphere. enforcement around demonstrations has been intense: the source says that for simply holding signs at rallies and sit-ins with slogans like “I support Palestine Action. ” nearly 3. 000 people have been arrested. On Friday. it says over 100 people. many of them elderly retirees. were arrested outside the sentencing hearing while holding signs in support of Palestine Action.
At sentencing, the judge explained the basis for the terrorism enhancement. The source quotes Justice Jeremy Johnson saying: “I am sure that each defendant’s offence of criminal damage involved serious damage to property. was designed to intimidate the UK government and a section of the public and was for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause.”.
The source argues that framing the activists’ actions as intimidation and ideological pursuit is at odds with how direct action works in practice—presented here as interference with production rather than political messaging. The source emphasizes that the acts were not petitions. rallies. or economic pressure campaigns. and it describes a broken quadcopter drone as something that cannot “rain fire down” on civilians.
There is also a sharp comparison drawn in the source to how the judge handled a far-right figure. It says that last year Justice Johnson moved to release Tommy Robinson early from prison. Robinson. the source says. had been convicted for contempt of court after repeatedly violating injunctions on spreading false allegations about a Syrian refugee. It adds that a High Court had rejected his appeal for early release. but Johnson nonetheless granted the early release. after which Robinson—according to the source—continued to stoke anti-immigrant racist violence. including what the source calls recent pogroms in Belfast.
Defend Our Juries. described in the source as a jury conscience advocacy group. argued that the Palestine Action defendants will not receive the same chance for early release as Robinson. It says: “If sentenced with a ‘terrorist connection’. the Filton 4 will not be afforded the same opportunity as Robinson. a repeat criminal. for early release.”.
Inside the courtroom, the activists did not receive terrorism convictions from a jury. Yet through sentencing, the court treated their criminal damage as terrorism-connected. And for those watching outside—some arrested while holding signs—it is that gap between what was found and what was imposed that is now echoing beyond this case.
Palestine Action Elbit Systems UK criminal damage terrorism enhancement Justice Jeremy Johnson Woolwich Crown Court Filton 25 Amnesty International UK Kerry Moscogiuri Huda Ammori
So they weren’t found guilty of terrorism but still got terrorism extra time? That seems messed up.
Wait I thought they were just doing damage like spray paint or something. Now it’s “terrorist connection”?? Kinda sounds like they’re calling any protest terrorism if it’s inconvenient.
This is the first British case like this so of course they’re setting precedent… meaning the next thing is they’ll lock everyone up for holding signs outside a court. Also “Elbit drones” like that should’ve been the whole focus not Palestine stuff, but I guess it’s all tied together anyway.
Honestly I’m confused. If police arrested people outside and they held signs, that’s not terrorism. And the article says the defendants weren’t convicted of any terrorism offense, but the judge still enhanced the sentence for “criminal damage.” So like… what’s the point of a conviction then? Feels like political pressure on the judge, or maybe they’re just using terrorism enhancements as a shortcut. Also drones at an arms factory—does that mean they broke into the building or was it already security footage or something?