Palestine Action activists in Elbit protest could be sentenced as terrorists
Posted: 13th May 2026
Judge’s ruling was not disclosed to jurors in two trials and can only now be revealed after reporting restrictions lifted
PRESS RELEASE:
REPORTING RESTRICTIONS LIFTED: JUDGE TO SENTENCE PROTESTERS AS TERRORISTS FOR FIRST TIME IN BRITISH HISTORY, DESPITE JURY ONLY CONVICTING OF CRIMINAL DAMAGE
Press queries: Tim – 07518 014087 | [email protected]
Consequences
The defendants have already spent 18 months in prison on remand – equivalent to nearly 4 years under sentencing guidelines, the upper limit for criminal damage. With a ‘terrorist connection’, sentences will be aggravated and defendants must serve their whole sentence unless a parole board – satisfied they are ‘reformed’ and rescind their beliefs – approves release after two-thirds.
This may see activists denied parole unless they renounce their opposition to Israel’s actions, placing them under extreme duress. Upon release, they could be licensed as terrorists for up to 15 years, requiring them to register any new device, bank account, email, or relationship with police. Any mistake could mean five years back in prison.
A conscientious motive – in this case, acting to stop a genocide – under normal legal principles would be a mitigating factor. Here, it is being turned against them.
The “Stitch up” of the Retrial
This conviction came after a first trial found the defendants not guilty. The retrial was conducted under sweeping restrictions which led to the defendants dismissing their barristers, leaving them to self-represent and give their own closing speeches.
All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before evidence was heard, meaning the defendants weren’t allowed to argue that their actions were legally justified as they acted to save lives and prevent a greater crime. He also barred defendants from telling the jury about their motivations for taking action, their emotional reactions to the massacres of Palestinians or the illegality of Israel’s actions.
In the UK, juries hold the right to return a not guilty verdict according to their own conscience. In this trial, the judge prevented the defendants from informing the jury of this right, and from stating that the judge could not compel them to convict. Protestors holding placards stating the right of juries to acquit according to their conscience were arrested outside the court.
In the defendants’ first trial, Rajiv Menon KC told the jury in his closing speech that the trial judge could not direct the jury to convict the defendants, and informed the jury of their right to acquit on the basis of conscience regardless of the judge’s directions. Menon highlighted Bushell’s case from 1670 which is recognised as having established beyond question the independence of the jury. He also read out the inscription of a plaque at the Old Bailey commemorating the case, which states that it “established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions”. The jury did not convict the defendants of a single offence, including criminal damage.
In response, Judge Johnson issued contempt of court proceedings against Menon, which Menon successfully appealed today. On 12 May 2026 the Court of Appeal ruled that Judge Johnson followed an unlawful process, in directly referring his complaint to the High Court, while bypassing the Attorney General. It’s believed no barrister in British legal history has faced contempt for their closing speech.
Following the guilty verdicts, the prosecution did not apply to revoke bail. Nevertheless, in a highly unusual move, Justice Johnson revoked bail immediately and returned the defendants to prison, where they remain ahead of sentencing on 12th June.
A spokesperson from Defend Our Juries stated:
“The public will be astonished to learn that in the British justice system a protester can now be convicted of criminal damage for disrupting an arms factory, and then be sentenced as ‘terrorists’ without having been convicted of terror charges and with this having been kept secret from the jury. Even more so given that two juries rejected all charges of intentional violence.
“This grave miscarriage of justice should be a matter of public outrage. Had the jury not been deliberately kept in the dark about this secret terrorise sentencing, the jury may not have chosen to convict. The judge also forbade the defendants and their barristers from informing the jury of their right to acquit on the basis of conscience.
“It is even more appalling that the first time this is happening in British history is to sentence protesters as terrorists for influencing the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons during a genocide.
“If this authoritarian and insidious precedent goes unchallenged, it will allow countless more protesters to be tried for an ordinary offence, but secretly sentenced as terrorists, without juries knowing this when they convict. When judges ban the word ‘genocide’ from court, prosecute barristers for defending pro-Palestine clients, and manipulate verdicts behind juries’ backs, we are witnessing a truly authoritarian abuse of power, one which has everything to do with protecting Israel’s arms trade.”
ENDS
REFERENCES:
‘Terrorist Connection’: Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/69
Definition of Terrorism: Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1
Repercussions of being sentenced as a ‘terrorist’:
Defend Our Juries social media accounts:
Instagram: defendourjuries
Facebook: www.facebook.com/defendourjuries
BlueSky: defendourjuries
YouTube: www.youtube.com/@Defend-Our-Juries
Hashtags:
#LiftTheBan