Exposed: The Way Britain Utilized Terrorism Legislation to Target Activists

Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Rajwani are among Palestine Action members accused of raiding an Israeli arms factory in Bristol in 2024.

Earlier this month, they were convicted of criminal damage at Woolwich Crown Court, with Corner additionally found guilty of grievous bodily harm without intent.

Two others, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin, were acquitted despite openly expressing pride in their actions during the trial.

The jury only considered the criminal charges and was not informed of any “terrorism connection” linked to the defendants.

Moreover, the 12-person jury was barred from hearing the motivations behind targeting the Israeli arms company, omitting crucial context such as the Gaza genocide.

The judge now faces the decision of whether to impose sentences reflecting this “terrorism connection,” which could have far-reaching consequences.

Unlike most UK inmates who serve roughly 40% of their sentences, these activists might be required to serve their complete terms unless a parole board grants early release after two-thirds is served and they demonstrate “rehabilitation.”

Upon release, they could face long-term classification as terrorists.

This scenario would be unprecedented, as no jury would have declared them guilty of terrorism offenses, yet they would be sentenced accordingly under terrorism laws.

How has this situation arisen?

‘Terrorism connection’

The Terrorism Act (2000) defines terrorism as acts that:

a.                  Involve serious violence towards individuals

b.                  Cause significant property destruction

c.                  Threaten someone’s life, excluding the perpetrator’s

d.                  Pose grave risks to public health or safety, or

e.                  Aim to seriously interfere with electronic systems

Additionally, these acts must:

a.                  Intend to influence governments or intimidate the public

b.                  Pursue political, religious, racial, or ideological goals

When introducing the act, home secretary Jack Straw assured parliament that these definitions “will not catch the vast majority of so-called domestic activist groups which exist in the country today.”

This coverage included groups like Greenpeace engaged in direct action on environmental and militarism issues.

Home Office minister Charles Clake stated that proscription powers would only be exercised “when absolutely necessary.”

The general understanding was that property damage unrelated to threats against life or safety would not be treated as terrorism.

However, the 2021 Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act lowered the threshold for prosecutors to add a “terrorism connection” to criminal cases.

It permitted non-terrorist offenses carrying sentences over two years to be linked to terrorism without a jury hearing those charges.

Lord Marks was among the few opposing this change, arguing it violates fundamental criminal law principles by allowing judges to impose sentences without evidence presented in a trial.

He emphasized that “No one should be convicted of an offence except upon admissible evidence, open to challenge in a trial and, if in the Crown Court, heard by a jury.”

The Filton incident

On 6 August 2024, Palestine Action activists targeted an Elbit Systems facility in Filton, Bristol.

Inside, they confronted security personnel—one guard reportedly struck an activist with a sledgehammer—and damaged property including military drones.

Some were detained on-site under ordinary criminal charges, but after 36 hours, they were re-arrested under section 5 of the Terrorism Act.

Section 5 criminalizes preparing or assisting terrorism acts, punishable by life imprisonment.

The police’s response prompted UN special rapporteurs to issue a warning, highlighting excessive counter-terrorism powers used despite scant evidence linking activist conduct to terrorism.

Ultimately, the Filton activists were not charged under the Terrorism Act, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) later requested the court recognize a “terrorism connection” under the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act in their case.

This marked the first application of such provisions against activists and appeared to lay groundwork for Palestine Action’s proscription.

Proscribing Palestine Action

Documents obtained by Declassified show the UK government considered banning Palestine Action before the Filton event.

A 27 June 2024 Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) report, five weeks prior, discussed resource demands if Palestine Action was deemed a terrorist organization by the CPS.

The report included a threat matrix categorizing activism ranging from lawful protest to terrorism as outlined in the Terrorism Act.

Legal representatives contend this timeline indicates the “terrorism connection” label was added post-Filton to provide a legal foundation for banning the group.

They argue that agencies understood that Palestine Action could only be proscribed as a terrorist entity if linked to actual “terrorism” rather than serious but non-terrorist activism.

To justify the proscription, agencies needed explicit instances of “terrorism,” with the initial Filton case charged to meet the criteria for a terrorist organization.

Former home secretary Yvette Cooper invoked the “terrorism connection” when defending the proscription in parliament last June.

Two months later, she wrote in the Observer explaining that charges against Palestine Action activists included this “terrorism connection.”

This publication occurred despite warnings that it risked prejudicing the Filton trial, signaling that securing the ban was the paramount concern.

Serious property damage

Although the “terrorism connection” justified the Palestine Action proscription, authorities have not clarified how they determine when protest-related property damage becomes terrorism.

Since its founding in 2020, Palestine Action has undertaken hundreds of direct actions, but only three events were cited as meeting the terrorism threshold when the ban was enacted.

What distinguished those incidents?

Last year, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) was asked under Freedom of Information law for guidance on when to apply a “terrorism connection” to protest-related crimes.

Requests included internal policy, circulars, and legal notes about prosecuting such cases.

The AGO responded neither confirming nor denying the existence of such documents, citing their role as the Government’s chief legal advisor.

The CPS stated it holds no relevant internal guidance related to the inquiry.

Taken together, this suggests an undefined legal boundary exists where protest-related criminal damage crosses into terrorism, but details remain undisclosed to the public.

£1 million

Despite a lack of transparency on applying “terrorism connections,” official documents and government statements indicate that protests causing over £1 million in damage might lead to terrorism sentencing for activists.

This threshold appears to have been established with pro-Palestine activists specifically targeted.

In March 2025, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), a unit within MI5, recommended Palestine Action’s proscription, basing that suggestion solely on three actions allegedly causing more than £1 million in damage.

The Filton incident was described in the JTAC report as “6 August 2024 Terrorist Attack” with damages estimated over GBP 1 million.

Another incident targeted French arms firm Thales in Glasgow in 2022, initially not viewed as terrorism until after Filton.

A private briefing for a British minister in 2023 noted that Palestine Action did not meet proscription criteria at the time, since it was not linked to acts of terrorism.

In 2025, a Scottish counter-terrorism panel reported that Palestine Action’s protests were far from satisfying the statutory terrorism definition.

From this, it appears authorities may have redefined the “terrorism” threshold based on the “serious property damage” clause in the Terrorism Act, retroactively applying it to past cases such as Thales.

This shift in interpretation raises significant alarms, especially because it lacks parliamentary or public consultation.

If the threshold was altered after Filton, it would imply ex post facto changes in legal enforcement.

In other words, defendants could not have foreseen that their conduct would be labeled terroristic at the time of committing the acts.

Additionally, arms firms targeted by Palestine Action may have incentives to exaggerate damage estimates to increase penalties, serving as a deterrent to future protests.

For example, damage from the Thales protest was estimated at £190,000, while the company inflated losses due to the site’s closure to £941,000.

In another case at a Runcorn factory, reported damage figures were later drastically reduced from £4 million to roughly £225,000–£345,000, a decline of over 90%.

No clear system appears to exist to verify accuracy of damage claims from arms companies before assigning a “terrorism connection.”

Palestine Action barrister wins appeal in contempt case

Alongside emphasizing actions causing over £1 million in damages, the JTAC report also accused Palestine Action of involvement in “violence.”

While acknowledging the group was “highly unlikely” to promote violence, the report asserted that some Filton participants attended prepared or willing to commit violent acts in support of their political aims.

Cooper reiterated similar remarks in parliament, stating that Palestine Action members had shown “a willingness to use violence.”

Security minister Dan Jarvis also claimed that Palestine Action activists “have used violence against people” and face serious charges including violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, and aggravated burglary.

Senior Conservative figures, like shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel, also asserted Palestine Action’s “long history of violence.”

Though these allegations served to bolster the case for proscription publicly, their role in prompting the “terrorism connection” designation and the overall ban remains unclear.

Since the CPS sought the “terrorism connection” for the initial Filton defendants, two juries have acquitted all defendants of violent intent.

While the Filton case was used to justify the proscription externally, the defendants’ acquittal on violence charges undermines that rationale.

Now, four defendants from Filton could receive terrorism sentences, even though Palestine Action was not proscribed at the incident’s time and the High Court later ruled the ban unlawful, with an appeal pending.

The sentencing hearing is scheduled for 12 June at Woolwich Crown Court, followed three days later by the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the Palestine Action ban’s legality.

The Crown Prosecution Service, Attorney General’s Office, and Counter Terrorism Policing were contacted for comment.

Original article: declassifieduk.org