A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an “appearance” of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.
Fucking Mosley must be laughing right now from hell.
I know that image from The Wall movie, but I guess it’s also its own piece given the signature. That watercolor sky is absolutely beautiful.
“Unprecedented”?
The English courts have been sentencing civilians as terrorists for centuries.
The difference is that none of the charges are commonly associated with terrorism. The judge had to invent a “terrorism connection” in addition to the normal charges.
Looks like they are one step behind the US and catching up fast.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
Rule Of Law my ass!
Rule of Israel
This again…
It wasn’t a new charge. It was an aggravating factor.
It’s the opposite of mitigating factors (for those who are confused). Jury says that for example someone is guilty of robbery. That’s the charge and the verdict. Now the judge has to come up with the sentence and can apply mitigating factors like: it’s his first offense, he showed remorse, admitted guilt and apologized to the victim, hence I will not give him maximum possible sentence…
Aggravating factors work the other way. The judge can say “he used a deadly weapon and is repeat offender: maximum sentence”. Under UK law “terrorism connection” can be added as aggravating factor to any verdict. The judge added it here because Palestine Action is currently proscribed as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Nothing was withheld from the jury, nothing was added to the charges. Those articles are simply lying about it.
because Palestine Action is currently proscribed as a terrorist group
ah so the ruling elite all glaze isreal, which means anyone who doesn’t agree with ethnic cleansing is a terrorist. I gotchu, yeah, very much legal and cool. All above board, nothing to see here. Gotta get those terrorists before they checks notes stop a genocide?
Yea, no, it most definitely is not that simple. Top UK lawyers are not bullshiters:
- https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/top-lawyer-palestine-action-terror-sentencing-5HjdbTp_2/
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat
“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
Either give them a trial as terrorists or don’t.
It really is that simple. What is “terrorist connection”? Let’s see.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-act-2026-factsheets/crime-and-policing-act-2026-counter-terrorism-and-national-security-factsheet https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
“”“The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 introduced a requirement for courts to consider whether a ‘terrorist connection’ is an aggravating factor when sentencing for a specific set of non-terrorism offences.”“”
So is “terrorist connection” an offense? No. It’s an aggravating factor.
“”“any offence is capable of being subject to a finding or a determination of a terrorist connection, if the offence is not a terrorism offence and is punishable with a maximum sentence of more than 2 years”“”
“”“maximum sentence for criminal damage is 10 years”“”
It’s all as clear as it can be.
The offense is criminal damage. The jury said they are guilty. The sentence can be more than 2 years. The judge can consider terrorist connection as a aggravating factor. He did.
Jury is not involved in sentencing. Nothing was withheld.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
You can argue that The Counter-Terrorism Act and the whole notion of “terrorist connection as an aggravating factor” is wrong and that only jury should be able to determine if someone has a connection to terrorist organization but you definitely can’t argue that the judge is adding some charges here without informing the jury. This is simply not what is happening. They are not even bending the rules here. They are doing exactly what the law allows them to do.
I’m not “arguing” anything in front of any court and I’m not saying the judge did not follow the letter of the law. Top UK lawyers are making the case that as tried this case poses grave constitutional threats. And they’re going to litigate this as far as it goes.
What I am saying is that what you’re presenting as a slam dunk …isn’t. This is unprecedented (the law is from 2020 and it’s the first time it’s used in such a case in such a way) and serious people are raising serious issues.
EDIT: oh and by the way, at the end of the day, legal schmegal, the Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists. They are activists putting their lives between Elbit’s butcher machines and Palestinian genocide victims. The cop who got injured should not have been in that Elbit factory because Elbit should not be allowed to build genocide machines period. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter really does apply here, and these are indeed freedom fighters. History will vindicate them. One day, everyone will have always been against this, but these folks will actually have the receipts. Tiocfaidh ár lá.
Why are you lying?
I asked why you lied. Your comment is factually false.
In all seriousness, has protesting actually ever done anything?
If they wanted to make a difference, surely there are better ways.
If spray painting a plane is the exact same as blowing it up then might as well blow it up.
Adding an offence later in the case and withholding information to a jury has to be grounds a mistrial.
Zionism overrules all other laws, it would seem.
the UK is officially a shithole country now
Now?
They’re putting the finishing touches on, been degrading for decades, ever since the focus of total control and surveillence shifted to them as a testbed.
Fascism has been achieved
Shameful
So terrorism just doesn’t mean anything anymore.
It’s always been a label so subjective that it’s essentially meaningless. There’s a reason why most big name news cables have “don’t use the word terror or terrorist” in their style guides.
It’s literally a disinhibitive ruling. Someone somewhere will inevitably think “well if I’m going to be called a terrorist anyway for some property damage, why not shoot at the cop that’s coming to stop me? In for a penny in for a pound.”
Ironically, it means the same it has always meant: resistance to colonization/imperialism/opression, it’s just that in the past it was disguised with the veil of “civilization”, and now the mask is off and you can see the naked brutal truth of how the term has always been weaponized
It never has
In the eyes of the oppressor …
Terror is in interesting word, it used to mean a government that oppressed their citizens, then it changed to mean general attacks on civillians by a non government entity.
And now, it means protesting specific government policies.
The first meanings are understandable, they involve harming civillians.
The new definition is just idiotic.
Well, your statement is pertinent, and therefore it terrorises me, so I hope you do not live in the UK.
Free the Palestine Action prisoners!
Remove the shameful judge!
Didn’t they break a cop’s back? “Middle East Eye” isn’t mentioning that because it’s not exactly an unbiased source of information. They’re just innocent “protesters” LOL.
Using violence to achieve a political goal is pretty much the definition of terrorism. Using violence to influence a government is terrorism. It would be bias for the judge to grant some kind of exemption simply because the government involved is Israel.
They were doing violence (broke a person’s back) to influence the British government’s relationship with Israel. That’s terrorism.
Consider expanding your sources of information beyond sites that are giving incomplete information with the goal of making you feel angry.
“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it’s far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.
(*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter.
“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
“They” were more than four people. There were eight others involved that were acquitted. Again, read some more news sources.
The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*)
How do you know the mindset of these people better than a jury of their peers that saw all of the evidence?
Also in many places it is first degree murder (not manslaughter) if you accidentally kill someone while in the commission of another crime. Modus operandi kinda goes out the window when you’re already engaged in a crime and that results in other crimes.
The intent of the original crime (property destruction) was to influence the government. That intent can be transferred to other crimes they committed (the acts of violence) while doing the original crime. Their intent was to influence the government. They committed crimes and violence happened during the commission of those crimes. The original intent applies to the violent crimes they committed. The intent of the violence was to influence the government.
Anyway it obviously was enough to convince a jury of their peers.
Pro-tip: if you’re going out to do crimes to try to influence the government, maybe refrain from hitting a policewoman multiple times with a fucking sledgehammer. I’m not going to be crying over someone that does something like that going to prison for a long time.
Not sure if you noticed but this is not the US. UK law doesn’t have a felony murder rule, intent to commit one crime (property destruction) doesn’t automatically transfer to another (killing) if violence occurs.
If someone dies during an unlawful act like arson, it’s usually manslaughter under the Homicide Act 1957, not murder, unless intent to kill or cause serious harm is proven. If you want to educate yourself on UK law, read up on R v Mitchell (1983) and R v Woollin (1999).
In this scenario, the jury convicted based solely on property damage, with terrorism charges withheld and defences (e.g. legal justification to save lives) barred by the judge.
If protesters set fire to a government building to influence policy and someone dies, they’d likely face manslaughter unless intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is proven. Transferred malice only applies if harm to a different person was unintended but foreseeable.
Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.
So you don’t think that the intent of the original crime doesn’t apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?
Or do you know that you’re wrong and can’t admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?
The double negative is breaking my brain.
So, taking into account that:
Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage.
All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before he heard the evidence, 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 the 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.
It seems that in this case the intent didn’t matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.
Can’t have it both ways mate.
EDIT: Turns out the leading UK lawyers are saying the exact same things:
- https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/top-lawyer-palestine-action-terror-sentencing-5HjdbTp_2/
- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat
“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
Can’t have it both ways mate.
Didn’t they break a cop’s back? “Middle East Eye” isn’t mentioning that because it’s not exactly an unbiased source of information. They’re just innocent “protesters” LOL.
Why would a cop be there?
Using violence to achieve a political goal is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Congrats, you just defined the entirety of every police force and judicial system in the world as terrorists.
Using violence to influence a government is terrorism.
No, it’s just the only effective way to enact change.
They were doing violence (broke a person’s back) to influence the British government’s relationship with Israel. That’s terrorism.
Only because they’re brown and going against a Western country. When the UK government hires people to do it, it’s just a military intervention.
Consider expanding your sources of information beyond sites that are giving incomplete information with the goal of making you feel angry.
You’re defending a country previously engaged in the worst acts ever recorded in human history, honestly dwarfing Germany’s in all but intensity, and currently is aiding in some of the worst acts in human history. If you ever find yourself in that position, I recommend either getting the taste of iron and sulphur in you, or correcting yourself before someone does that for you.
Why would a cop be there?
Because they broke into a building and were destroying property. They were fighting with the building’s security and so the cops were called.
You really don’t know anything about the subject, do you? Really, you have to read news from more sources instead of just swallowing whatever propaganda that gets fed to you.
Because they broke into a building and were destroying property.
Oh no. Maybe that building was promised to them 3000 years ago. Did you see if they had any UK-recognized religious claims to that building and its materials? The UK recognizes ancient religious claims to land and possessions so clearly the cops broke the law by not following their own precedent.
They were fighting with the building’s security and so the cops were called.
Maybe the security were just islamphobic and were holding their children hostage. You don’t know. You weren’t there. Until I get a government press release from a trust worthy government I can’t really say it’s not true. Really we have to give such claims equal weight since we now know they had a 3000 year old claim to that building and all its possessions. It seems like the building security are the real terrorists here.
You really don’t know anything about the subject, do you? Really, you have to read news from more sources instead of just swallowing whatever propaganda that gets fed to you.
Maybe I just need some more Hasbara in my life, it’s clearly done you a world of good.
What are you talking about? They hit a police woman in the back multiple times with a god damn sledgehammer.
Do you think people that do that shouldn’t go to prison?
Genuinely sounds like self defense. I’d have to wait until I see approved-state approved versions of the livestream and video though but it just sounds like that police woman was hiding nuclear secrets in her back and really had it coming. I mean she clearly threatened the entire country and these heroes bravely did what any hero should and took out the threat.
It doesn’t exactly help the argument that this wasn’t terrorism when you automatically relate every violent act to geopolitics.
If you ever do any violence, this kind of thing in your posting history would be pretty strong evidence of terrorist intent.
Politics by definition is violence. It is the descriptor of who is allowed to do the violence. All of politics is violence, all of violence is political to some degree.
And honey, if I’m ever stuck in a western country and am arrested, the last thing on my mind is terrorism charges. I’d be worried about getting raped or tortured for the rest of my life more than whatever excuse a government uses to allow my rape and torture.
Daily reminder that the Middle East Eye refuses to disclose it’s owner, which is extremely suspicious. That’s because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar’s embassy in London.
Next time, please at least quote The Guardian or another British media outlet.
Jesus christ, every time with this guy. Can you please try not to be so fucking obvious? The guardian is just as biased as MEE, the only difference is that their bias is in favor of Israel instead. You sound like a raging islamophobe btw.
Are you suggesting Middle East Eye is secretly run by Zionists or Israel itself in an effort to further drive antisemitism? Similar to the way Evangelical Christianity grows stronger the more its adherents feel persecuted, one of the goals of Zionism is to increase antisemitic sentiment to make more Jewish people feel they have no safe place in the world other than to move to Israel? Interesting, I hadn’t considered this. /s?
Is Israel committing genocide?
News is the UKs worst export and that’s fucking saying something.
That’s because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar’s embassy in London.
Citation needed.
Also, please elaborate on exactly why, even if it were true, that would be so fucking scary.
And so you post a trash rag owned by a shady zionist shell corporation?
Exactly, The guardian isnt much better.
Isn’t qatar a big ally of UK?
