Five defendants — Brendon O’Hagan and Mohammed Malik, both 28; Amanda Kelly and Hmeera Atiqnisar, both 31; and Alma Yaniv, 70 — convicted of criminal damage at Preston Crown Court over an August 2024 action at a Barclays branch in Burnley. The CPS applied for a “terrorist connection” finding only after the trial had concluded.
\n\nTwenty-five people charged over an August 2024 action at Elbit Systems’ Filton site near Bristol, approximately £1.2m damage, split across multiple trials. Six acquitted of aggravated burglary in February 2026 with a hung jury on criminal damage; four convicted at retrial in May 2026; sentenced 12 June 2026 by Justice Jeremy Johnson with a “terrorist connection” finding — the first ever applied to protest criminal damage in the UK. Three further trials run into 2027.
\n\nAll Crown copyright, reproducible under the Open Government Licence.
\n\nOn 3 March 2021, the House of Lords debated an amendment that would have required a jury — or at minimum a trial of the issue on admissible evidence — before any offence could be treated as having a terrorist connection. Lord Marks described, in terms, the exact scenario that has since happened at Woolwich and is now proposed at Preston. The government opposed it. The amendment was defeated 281 to 126.
\n\nIt converts the argument from “we don’t like this outcome” into “you were told exactly this would happen, and you voted it down.” That is a question a Member of Parliament has to answer rather than deflect.
\nHansard is published under the Open Parliament Licence: you may reproduce, adapt and publish it freely, including commercially, with attribution. Quote it in full. Put it on a poster. Read it to camera.
\nhansard.parliament.uk/debates/GetDebateAsText/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113
\nThe whole debate as plain text — the cleanest way to pull exact wording without transcription errors. Everything below deep-links into individual contributions on the main page.
\n\nProposed new subsections (1A) and (1B): no terrorist connection unless the defendant admitted it in person in open court, or there was a trial of the issue — determined by a jury unless the court found the interests of justice were better served by a judge alone.
\n \n\nThe gold seam. Four passages worth lifting verbatim:
\n\n the consequences of a finding of a terrorist connection are devastating for the offender\n Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames · HL Deb 3 March 2021\n\n \n\n
Argued the concerns were overstated: judges already exercise sentencing discretion, and the criminal standard applies. Include this. A document that quotes only the objectors looks curated. Quoting the opposing case and then showing what happened is stronger than pretending it was never made.
\n \n\nLabour did not oppose. He preferred the Newton hearing route and confirmed they would abstain. Directly relevant now that a Labour government is applying the provision.
\n \n\nThe single most quotable passage in the debate. Find the paragraph beginning “During the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008…”
\nIt records that the government considered putting the terrorist connection to the jury, discussed it with experienced prosecutors, and rejected it — because if the defence disputed whether the conduct fell within the definition of terrorism, that would cause lengthy diversions, divert the prosecution from securing swift justice, and create significantly longer trials.
\nRead that twice. The stated reason for keeping the question from the jury is that the defence might successfully dispute whether it was terrorism — and that this would take time.
\nAlso in this speech: the s.66 racial-hostility analogy; the endorsement by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, who told the Public Bill Committee this measure would make the most substantial difference to public safety of anything in the Bill; and the two offered safeguards — the judge must state the finding in open court, and it can be appealed.
\n \n\nThe closing paragraph is the Burnley case in one sentence: nothing he had heard allowed for the possibility that an offender guilty only of the basic offence, but not of committing it with a terrorist connection, would nevertheless be sentenced on the aggravated basis by a judge who had heard only representations.
\n \n\nContent 126. Not Content 281. Amendment disagreed.
\nThe outputType=Names parameter returns every peer who voted each way. Some are still sitting.
\n \n\nAmend s.69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 so that no offence may be treated as having a terrorist connection unless the defendant admits it in open court or the issue is tried on admissible evidence. The drafting already exists — it is Amendment 1, moved on 3 March 2021, and it has been sitting in the record for five years.
\n\n", "links": [ { "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/69", "label": "legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/69", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1", "label": "legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/247A", "label": "legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/247A", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/14/enacted", "label": "legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/14/enacted", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://verfassungsblog.de/palestine-action-sentencing-regime/", "label": "verfassungsblog.de/palestine-action-sentencing-regime/", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/contempt-court", "label": "cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/contempt-court", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/open-parliament-licence/", "label": "Open Parliament Licence", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/debates/GetDebateAsText/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113", "label": "hansard.parliament.uk/debates/GetDebateAsText/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-03-03/debates/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill#contribution-30173246-E61C-4D5C-8F3F-9216BD01EBA8", "label": "Open the amendment text →", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-03-03/debates/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill#contribution-8FD925AD-3A2A-4FCC-A242-9C3282414AC0", "label": "Open the speech →", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-03-03/debates/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill#contribution-81434EAA-6614-4528-9EC5-181A4121C91F", "label": "Open the speech →", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-03-03/debates/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill#contribution-81C42680-D3F9-427C-B022-FEF1EC472835", "label": "Open the speech →", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-03-03/debates/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill#contribution-97EE0A16-ACB5-4514-88AC-7626016C5916", "label": "Open the speech →", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-03-03/debates/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill#contribution-C856033E-32D9-4829-A1D8-4D51B4DF91C0", "label": "Open the speech →", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-03-03/division/9373DE44-BCFD-48F8-A201-87DA0F1EA53F/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill?outputType=Names", "label": "Open the division list →", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2021-01-26b.1531.0", "label": "theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2021-01-26b.1531.0", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" }, { "url": "https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-30/debates/862dd57f-2a10-4d00-a5f4-8df964afa0a6/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill(FourthSitting)", "label": "hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-30/debates/862dd57f-2a10-4d00-a5f4-8df964afa0a6/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill(FourthSitting)", "verification": "imported-link-not-rechecked" } ], "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/research/terrorist-connection/", "body_text": "Statutory sources and legal analysis\n\n\n All Crown copyright, reproducible under the Open Government Licence.\n\n\n\n \n \n Sentencing Act 2020, s.69 — Offences with a terrorist connection \n legislation.gov.uk Statute \n legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/69 \n The mechanism. Judicial finding at sentencing, criminal standard, treated as an aggravating factor. \n \n\n\n \n Terrorism Act 2000, s.1 — Terrorism: interpretation \n legislation.gov.uk Statute \n legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1 \n The three-limb test: serious damage to property; designed to influence the government or intimidate a section of the public; for a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. \n \n\n\n \n Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.247A — Restricted eligibility for release of terrorist prisoners \n legislation.gov.uk Statute \n legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/247A \n The practical consequence: no automatic release, Parole Board referral. \n \n\n\n \n Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.14 \n legislation.gov.uk Statute \n legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/14/enacted \n Two-year cap on committal for contempt in a superior court. \n \n\n\n \n The Palestine Action sentencing regime \n Verfassungsblog Academic \n verfassungsblog.de/palestine-action-sentencing-regime/ \n The most rigorous analysis of the constitutional tension in the first judicial application of s.69. \n \n\n\n \n Contempt of court — prosecution guidance \n Crown Prosecution Service Official \n cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/contempt-court \n \n\n\n \n Hansard debates · 3 March 2021\n\n\n\n\n On 3 March 2021, the House of Lords debated an amendment that would have required a jury — or at minimum a trial of the issue on admissible evidence — before any offence could be treated as having a terrorist connection. Lord Marks described, in terms, the exact scenario that has since happened at Woolwich and is now proposed at Preston. The government opposed it. The amendment was defeated 281 to 126.\n\n\n\n \n Why this matters more than any headline\n\n\n It converts the argument from “we don’t like this outcome” into “you were told exactly this would happen, and you voted it down.” That is a question a Member of Parliament has to answer rather than deflect.\n\n\n Hansard is published under the Open Parliament Licence : you may reproduce, adapt and publish it freely, including commercially, with attribution. Quote it in full. Put it on a poster. Read it to camera.\n\n\n \n\n Full verbatim text\n\n\n hansard.parliament.uk/debates/GetDebateAsText/505579E3-C8CF-4546-A758-65B6A263F113 \n\n\n The whole debate as plain text — the cleanest way to pull exact wording without transcription errors. Everything below deep-links into individual contributions on the main page.\n\n\n\n The contributions, in order\n\n\n\n 1 · The amendment\n\n\n Proposed new subsections (1A) and (1B): no terrorist connection unless the defendant admitted it in person in open court, or there was a trial of the issue — determined by a jury unless the court found the interests of justice were better served by a judge alone.\n\n\n Open the amendment text → \n\n\n\n 2 · Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames — opening speech\n\n\n The gold seam. Four passages worth lifting verbatim:\n\n\n \n The prediction Paragraph 2. A jury convicts of the basic offence, meriting a short sentence; a judge alone, without hearing evidence, finds a terrorist connection and imposes a long one. This is the Filton and Burnley posture, described five years in advance. \n\n\n What the provision used to cover Paragraph 3. Murder, explosives offences, hijacking, hostage-taking, serious aviation offences — all of which would merit long sentences anyway, which is why aggravating them was less objectionable. \n\n\n The broadening Paragraph 4. Extension to any offence carrying more than two years, with a worked example of low-level ABH. \n\n\n The consequences Paragraph 5. Notification requirements classing the offender as a terrorist with lifelong consequences, forfeiture provisions, and restricted early release. Ends on the phrase quoted below. \n\n\n \n \n the consequences of a finding of a terrorist connection are devastating for the offender\n Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames · HL Deb 3 March 2021 \n \n\n\n Open the speech → \n\n\n\n 3 · Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown — against\n\n\n Argued the concerns were overstated: judges already exercise sentencing discretion, and the criminal standard applies. Include this. A document that quotes only the objectors looks curated. Quoting the opposing case and then showing what happened is stronger than pretending it was never made.\n\n\n Open the speech → \n\n\n\n 4 · Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede — Labour front bench\n\n\n Labour did not oppose. He preferred the Newton hearing route and confirmed they would abstain. Directly relevant now that a Labour government is applying the provision.\n\n\n Open the speech → \n\n\n\n 5 · Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay — the government’s answer\n\n\n The single most quotable passage in the debate. Find the paragraph beginning “During the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008…” \n\n\n It records that the government considered putting the terrorist connection to the jury, discussed it with experienced prosecutors, and rejected it — because if the defence disputed whether the conduct fell within the definition of terrorism, that would cause lengthy diversions, divert the prosecution from securing swift justice, and create significantly longer trials.\n\n\n \n Read that twice. The stated reason for keeping the question from the jury is that the defence might successfully dispute whether it was terrorism — and that this would take time.\n\n\n \n Also in this speech: the s.66 racial-hostility analogy; the endorsement by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, who told the Public Bill Committee this measure would make the most substantial difference to public safety of anything in the Bill; and the two offered safeguards — the judge must state the finding in open court, and it can be appealed.\n\n\n Open the speech → \n\n\n\n 6 · Lord Marks — reply\n\n\n The closing paragraph is the Burnley case in one sentence: nothing he had heard allowed for the possibility that an offender guilty only of the basic offence, but not of committing it with a terrorist connection, would nevertheless be sentenced on the aggravated basis by a judge who had heard only representations.\n\n\n Open the speech → \n\n\n\n 7 · The division\n\n\n Content 126. Not Content 281. Amendment disagreed.\n\n\n The outputType=Names parameter returns every peer who voted each way. Some are still sitting.\n\n\n Open the division list → \n\n\n\n Related debates worth mining\n\n\n \n \n Lords Committee stage — 26 January 2021 \n Clause 1 stand part \n theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2021-01-26b.1531.0 \n Where Marks first opposed the clause entirely, and Lord Thomas of Gresford raised the Newton hearing option. The argument here is longer and in places sharper than the Report-stage version. \n \n\n\n \n Commons Public Bill Committee, Fourth Sitting — 30 June 2020 \n Amendment 35, standard of proof \n hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-30/debates/862dd57f-2a10-4d00-a5f4-8df964afa0a6/Counter-TerrorismAndSentencingBill(FourthSitting) \n Where the Lammy Review’s findings on sentencing disparity were put directly against this clause. \n \n\n\n \n\n The ask\n\n\n Amend s.69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 so that no offence may be treated as having a terrorist connection unless the defendant admits it in open court or the issue is tried on admissible evidence. The drafting already exists — it is Amendment 1, moved on 3 March 2021, and it has been sitting in the record for five years." }, { "id": "proscription-litigation", "title": "Proscription Litigation", "jurisdiction": "Judicial review · United Kingdom", "summary": "The challenge to Palestine Action’s proscription and the litigation sources collected in July 2026.", "tags": [ "uk", "proscription", "courts" ], "order": 4, "source_as_of": "2026-07-28", "migrated_on": "2026-10-17", "verification": "historical-import-needs-current-review", "review_note": "The litigation narrative and citation below are retained from the July dossier, not independently confirmed as the current position. Check the judgments, any stay, subsequent appeals and the current official proscription list before relying on its status.", "provenance": { "repository": "https://github.com/PlanetaryCouncil/barclays5", "commit": "9831cfdcb6ca0f63f488cd81794f8e6d0e79f88c", "files": [ "sources.html" ], "original_site": "https://barclays5.planetarycouncil.org/" }, "corrections": [], "body_html": "Palestine Action proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 in July 2025 — the first such designation for a direct-action protest group. Huda Ammori’s challenge succeeded at the High Court in February 2026 and was reversed by the Court of Appeal in June 2026. Home Secretary v Ammori [2026] EWCA Civ 1721
\n\nEight remand prisoners from the Filton and RAF Brize Norton cases began an open-ended hunger strike on 2 November 2025 — the largest in UK prisons since 1981. Four refused food for up to 73 days. Their demands included bail, an end to correspondence censorship, the right to a fair trial, dropping the terrorist-connection claim, de-proscription, and the closure of Elbit’s UK operations. Bail was granted on 20 February 2026. The Justice Secretary declined throughout to meet their representatives.
\n\nA police lieutenant was shot in the neck at Prairieland. Benjamin Song fired the weapon and received 100 years. Do not place that case alongside spray paint on a bank and imply equivalence — one sentence from a hostile reader destroys the whole argument.
\nThe honest parallel is not equivalent conduct. It is the same machinery reaching people at the edges: material support, obstruction, terrorist connection. Anchor on Sanchez Estrada, who moved a box of pamphlets and was not present at the protest.
\n