Four Activists Convicted of Criminal Damage Could Serve Full Prison Terms as Terrorists
Four **Palestine Action** activists convicted for a violent protest at the **Elbit Systems UK** arms manufacturing site near Bristol now face the possibility of being sentenced as terrorists—despite the jury never being informed of this potential outcome during their trial.
In a groundbreaking and controversial legal move, **Mr Justice Johnson** ruled before the initial trial that the criminal damage offenses appeared to have a “terrorist connection.” This determination, made even though the protest occurred before **Palestine Action** was officially proscribed, was deliberately withheld from the jury. The same restriction applied during the recent retrial that led to convictions.
The jury found **Charlotte Head, 29**, **Samuel Corner, 23**, **Leona Kamio, 30**, and **Fatema Rajwani, 21** guilty of criminal damage after they broke into the Elbit site in 2024, damaging drones and other military equipment.
Terrorism Connection Could Extend Prison Time and Impose Lifetime Restrictions
Following the lifting of reporting restrictions on Tuesday, the court revealed the terrorism connection ruling. At sentencing, judges will decide—based on the criminal standard of proof—whether the activists’ actions qualify as terrorism.
If the court confirms the terrorism link, the convicted activists will face significantly harsher penalties: they must serve their entire prison sentences without early release, except if a parole board grants release after two-thirds of the term. In contrast, non-terrorism prisoners typically serve only about 40% of their sentences before eligibility for release.
Moreover, the parole board must be convinced that the defendants have abandoned their previous beliefs and have genuinely reformed.
Lifetime Terrorism Labels and Police Registrations Loom
Upon release, these individuals could be labeled as terrorists for life. This designation would require them to register any new devices, bank accounts, email addresses, and even personal relationships with the police indefinitely. Failure to comply or any misstep could result in immediate reincarceration.
The jury at **Woolwich Crown Court** was kept in the dark about these severe consequences while convicting the activists of criminal damage—a charge that normally does not carry terrorism implications—for their protest actions against the Elbit factory.
Judicial Reasoning: Motivations Intertwined with Terrorism Act Provisions
In March 2025, **Mr Justice Johnson** acknowledged the defense’s argument that the activists aimed to save lives by damaging weapons, rather than to influence government policy. However, he concluded that damaging property destined for the Israeli government could itself constitute an act intended to influence the Israeli government, thereby satisfying the terrorism connection under Section 1(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The judge further refused to allow the defense of lawful excuse for criminal damage. On 21 April, he barred any testimony about the activists’ motivations, including their reasons for joining Palestine Action, beliefs about Elbit’s role in supplying weapons for the Gaza conflict, or their views on Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The court ruled such evidence irrelevant to the jury’s determination, which was limited strictly to whether property damage occurred.
Concerns Over Justice and Precedent
A spokesperson for **Defend Our Juries** condemned the secrecy surrounding the terrorism sentencing possibility. They stated, “The public will be astonished to learn that in the British justice system, protesters can be convicted of criminal damage for disrupting an arms factory and then sentenced as terrorists without ever being charged with terrorism—and with this kept hidden from the jury.”
This unprecedented legal approach raises alarms about its potential to set a dangerous precedent for future protest-related cases, blurring the lines between legitimate civil disobedience and terrorism.
