UK court weighs terrorism label for Palestine Action defendants
A London court is due to decide whether four Palestine Action activists convicted of criminal damage at an Elbit Systems UK site should be sentenced as having a terrorist connection. A jury at Woolwich Crown Court convicted Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Zainab Rajwani over the 2024 Filton raid; prosecutors said the action caused about £1 million in damage, and Corner was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent. The legal issue is larger than the sentence. UK law allows judges to attach a terrorist connection at sentencing even where the conviction is for an ordinary criminal offence. The UK Parliament’s 2025 proscription of Palestine Action, now under appeal after a High Court ruling found the ban unlawful, has already made support for the group a counterterrorism matter. The case tests how far states can stretch terrorism law into disruptive protest.
For Belgian residents, voters, civil-society groups and lawyers, the case is a close European comparator for the boundary between protest crime and terrorism law. Belgium also faces polarised demonstrations over Gaza, arms exports and public order. The direct decision is British, but the underlying question is familiar in Brussels: when property damage, disruptive protest or support for a banned group becomes terrorism, the consequences for speech, policing and courts can move far beyond the defendants.
Palestine Action (UK direct-action network founded in 2020) targets companies it says are linked to Israel’s military supply chain. Woolwich Crown Court (criminal court in southeast London) is handling the sentencing. Filton (area near Bristol in southwest England) hosts the Elbit Systems UK facility involved in the case. Elbit Systems UK (British arm of Israeli defence company Elbit Systems) operates defence and security sites in Britain. Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Zainab Rajwani (the four convicted defendants) face sentencing after the jury’s verdict. RAF Brize Norton (Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire) was the site of a separate 2025 Palestine Action raid that preceded proscription. The Terrorism Act 2000 (UK counterterrorism statute) governs proscribed organisations. The Sentencing Act 2020 (England and Wales sentencing code) allows terrorist-connection findings at sentencing. Michael Mansfield KC (British human-rights barrister) joined lawyers opposing that approach.
Background
The UK Parliament approved Palestine Action’s proscription in July 2025 after the government cited a raid at RAF Brize Norton; the statutory order grouped the network with two extremist organisations. The High Court later found the proscription unlawful in February 2026, holding that the Home Secretary had not properly applied policy and that the rights impact was disproportionate, although the ban remained in force pending appeal. The Bingham Centre commission argued in 2025 that Britain’s broad terrorism definition gives ministers excessive discretion. Earlier British protest movements, from suffragettes to environmental direct action, used property damage without being categorised as terrorism.
The wider picture
The dispute sits inside the Gaza war’s spillover into European domestic politics. Western governments are trying to protect defence infrastructure and manage polarised street protest, while rights bodies warn that counterterrorism labels can delegitimise political expression. For Belgium, host to EU and NATO institutions, that tension is part of the broader security-versus-rights debate around Middle East policy.
Why now
The immediate trigger is the scheduled sentencing after the May 2026 Woolwich Crown Court convictions. The judge must decide whether the 2024 Filton offences should carry a terrorist connection, a question sharpened by the unresolved appeal over Palestine Action’s proscription.
What to watch
Watch the sentencing reasons, not only the prison terms. The key signal is whether the judge formally finds a terrorist connection and how the court explains the legal threshold. The separate appeal over the proscription will remain the next major test.
Opposing perspectives
- UK government / Home Office
The government’s strongest case is that Palestine Action crossed from protest into ideologically motivated sabotage against defence and military-linked sites. On that view, the UK Parliament’s proscription and any terrorist-connection finding are tools for public safety, deterrence and protecting sensitive infrastructure, while ordinary pro-Palestinian protest remains lawful.
- Civil-liberties lawyers and rule-of-law researchers
Lawyers opposing the sentencing approach and the Bingham Centre commission argue that terrorism law should be reserved for conduct threatening life, national security or public safety, not broadened after trial to cover protest-related property damage. Their strongest concern is legal predictability: defendants should know the nature and consequences of the case they must answer.
- UN human-rights officials
UN human rights chief Volker Türk argued that the Palestine Action ban was disproportionate because it exposed people who had not committed violence to severe counterterrorism penalties for expression or association. This frame treats the issue less as sympathy for the group and more as protection of rights under international human-rights law.
- Elbit Systems UK and defence-sector security advocates
The defence-sector view is that repeated raids on facilities linked to military supply chains are not merely symbolic protest. The strongest version of this argument is that companies and workers need protection from organised sabotage, and that criminal damage aimed at disrupting defence production can create security risks beyond the immediate repair bill.
Sources & evidence
- View sourceAl Jazeera - Palestine Action activists could face UK terror sentences: What we knowPrimary· aljazeera.com· 11 June 2026Retrieved 11 June 2026· 34 days ago· Dated
- View sourceThe Guardian - Sentencing Palestine Action protesters as terrorists would be constitutional threat, says lawyer· theguardian.com· 10 June 2026Retrieved 11 June 2026· 35 days ago· Dated
- View sourceThe Guardian - Four Palestine Action activists convicted of criminal damage· theguardian.com· 5 May 2026Retrieved 11 June 2026· 71 days ago· Dated
- View sourceAP - Protest group Palestine Action goes to court to challenge its ban by the UK government· apnews.com· 1 December 2025Retrieved 11 June 2026· 226 days ago· Dated
