Judge rules Palestine Action attack on Burnley bank won't be treated as terrorism
Five people will still be sentenced for criminal damage after the £200,000 attack on a Barclays branch
An attack on a Barclays Bank by five people from the Palestine Action group will not be treated as terrorism when they are sentenced, a judge has ruled.
The five smiled with relief and were hugged and cheered by supporters as the ruling was given at Preston Crown Court on Friday.
It means all five will still be sentenced next month for criminal damage in the attack costing £200,000.
But Judge Robert Altham, the Recorder of Preston, ruled section 69 of the Sentencing Act, establishing a terror link to the criminal damage offence, did not apply – so the defendants will face lesser sentences when they are dealt with.
Judge Altham said while the damage was substantial, it was not of the size of other attacks or on a sensitive property, such as an arms firm, as has happened during previous Palestine Action action.
He said: “For section 69 to apply the damage must amount to serious damage.
“The threshold is a high one, the quality of the act must also be considered.
“I agree the monetary value is not the only factor.
“The nature and sensitivity of the property damaged is also relevant.
“Whilst the damage is undoubtedly significant, I’m not satisfied it amounts to serious damage for the purposes of the Terrorism Act.
“Section 69 does not apply in this case.”
Around 100 supporters, many waving the red, white, black and green flag of Palestine, cheered and banged drums on the steps outside as the defendants left court.
Palestine Action, was not proscribed as a terror group at the time of the attack.
The group targeted the Barclays branch on St James’s Street in Burnley, Lancashire, on August 5 2024.
Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Mohammed Malik, 26, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted of criminal damage in June after a trial at Preston Crown Court.
All will be sentenced on September 4.
They claimed the 2am attack was designed to pressure Barclays into withdrawing financial support for weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems, a firm based in Israel.
Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July 2025 and has been behind a string of direct action protests targeting Elbit due to the firm’s links to the Israeli military.
In May this year, a judge at Woolwich Crown Court ruled Palestine Action activists who caused £1.2 million of damage in a raid on Elbit’s factory near Bristol should be sentenced as terrorists.
All the defendants in the Barclays trial, apart from Yaniv, were either closely linked to Palestine Action or full members, they had attended a training session on direct action and the attack on the bank was part of a wider campaign by the group to exert pressure over its financial ties to Elbit.
They were masked and armed with hammers, filming their actions to be distributed publicly and causing damage valued at £212,805.14.
If sentenced as terrorists, the five would have faced longer jail terms, lost the right to automatic early release and spent an extended period on licence and subject to police monitoring.
Earlier, Pete Weatherby KC, representing O’Hagan, said if the defendants were to be sentenced as terrorists, it would “lead to draconian sentences with dire consequences”.
Mr Weatherby said what they had done: breaking windows “in the dead of night” with a hammer, daubing slogans with paint, dropping leaflets about Palestine at the scene, was “very far from terrorism” and what Parliament meant by passing terrorism laws, adding: “Ordinary criminal law is sufficient to cover such convictions.”
He added: “The political motivation was to do with what the defendants consider, and many agree with them, the genocide in Gaza.”