A Palestine Action activist gave a defiant cry after being sentenced to six years in prison for criminal damage with a “terrorist connection”, after smashing up an Israeli weapons factory.
They are guilty of something but it is absolutely shameful, terrifying and frankfully illegal how the judge acted in this case. The burden lies with the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt they were guilty but could not do this without limiting the rights of the defendants.
Defendants barred from explaining their motivations to the jury. Throughout the trial the defendants were restricted in what the jury could be told about the wider context of their actions, yet that same context was relied upon at the sentencing stage. The defendants had compared their stand to that of the suffragettes, who in their own time were denounced as a threat to social order.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/08/palestine-action-activist-compared-to-suffragettes-in-court
Concerns about the conduct of the trial and the judge. The trial judge referred the chief defence barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, for contempt of court over his closing speech — a referral the barrister successfully challenged, with the Court of Appeal ruling that the matter should be reconsidered. That a leading defence barrister should face such an unprecedented step over the way he defended his client raises real questions about the fairness of the proceedings and the chilling effect on robust defence advocacy.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/may/12/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-wins-appeal-contempt-court-chargehttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgp5k0ex1zo
They are guilty of something but it is absolutely shameful, terrifying and frankfully illegal how the judge acted in this case. The burden lies with the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt they were guilty but could not do this without limiting the rights of the defendants.
Defendants sentenced as “terrorists” without ever being charged with or convicted of terrorism. The four were convicted only of criminal damage, yet at sentencing the judge, Mr Justice Johnson, attached a “terrorist connection” to their offences, which means they must serve at least two-thirds of their sentences in prison. The jury was never told this possibility existed and never found any of the defendants guilty of a terror-related crime. It is difficult to see how it can be right for so grave a label, with such serious consequences for sentence length and release, to be imposed at the sentencing stage in an ordinary criminal damage case. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/12/palestine-action-activists-sentenced-terrorists-damage-elbit-systems-uk-israel https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat
This was so even though the protest took place before Palestine Action was proscribed. The defence noted it was unprecedented for the prosecution to apply for a judge to sentence a defendant as a terrorist for a non-violent offence. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Defendants barred from explaining their motivations to the jury. Throughout the trial the defendants were restricted in what the jury could be told about the wider context of their actions, yet that same context was relied upon at the sentencing stage. The defendants had compared their stand to that of the suffragettes, who in their own time were denounced as a threat to social order. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/08/palestine-action-activist-compared-to-suffragettes-in-court
Inconsistent and missing CCTV, and questions over the conduct of security guards. In the earlier trial the defence argued that the Elbit security team had used excessive force and pointed to missing CCTV footage. When a jury heard the full picture, all six of the original defendants were cleared of aggravated burglary. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/04/palestine-action-activists-cleared-aggravated-burglary-israeli-defence-firm-elbit-systems-filton
Concerns about the conduct of the trial and the judge. The trial judge referred the chief defence barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, for contempt of court over his closing speech — a referral the barrister successfully challenged, with the Court of Appeal ruling that the matter should be reconsidered. That a leading defence barrister should face such an unprecedented step over the way he defended his client raises real questions about the fairness of the proceedings and the chilling effect on robust defence advocacy. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/may/12/palestine-action-trial-lawyer-wins-appeal-contempt-court-charge https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgp5k0ex1zo