Found guilty of one crime; possibly sentenced for another
JVL Introduction
In a dangerous real life version of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, four young people face incarceration for a crime they were never charged with. As we have reported before four activists involved in a Palestine Action attempt to stop Elbit Systems, an Israeli Arms Company, from continuing its weapons production at its Bristol factory and contributing to the assaults on the Palestinian people. The four were charged and found guilty only of criminal damage but now there is a serious risk that the Judge, who tried to stop the Jury even hearing the reasons for their actions, may sentence them on Friday (12th June) as terrorists, which carries a harsher sentence with worse treatment and lifelong consequences.
At the time that the action was taken, Palestine Action had NOT been proscribed or even described as a terrorist organisation. The four have already spent over a year and up to 18 months in prison while on remand, which is significantly longer than would normally be allowed in a case for a criminal damage charge.
In addition, the government’s designation of Palestine Action as terrorist has been declared illegal by the High Court, a decision which the government has appealed. The Court of Appeal will make their decision on that public on Monday 15th.
Lawyers highlight how dangerous this would be and question why the government is so determined to clamp down on those taking direct action trying to stop a genocide.
This article was originally published by The Guardian on Wed 10 Jun 2026. Read the original here.
Sentencing Palestine Action protesters as terrorists would be ‘constitutional threat’, says lawyer
Judge will decide whether four’s acts had link to terrorism, despite jury not convicting them of terrorism offence
One of the UK’s leading human rights lawyers has said the potential sentencing of four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists when the jury did not convict them of a terrorism offence violates fundamental legal principles.
Michael Mansfield KC, known for his work on landmark cases such as the Grenfell Tower fire, Stephen Lawrence’s murder and the Birmingham Six, claimed the sentencing of Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21 represents a “constitutional threat”.
Last month, they were found guilty of criminal damage over a 2024 break-in at an Israeli arms manufacturer’s UK site. On Friday, the trial judge, Mr Justice Johnson, will decide whether there was a terrorism connection to their offence – which would mean a harsher sentence – despite the jury never having been told of this possibility.
Mansfield is the highest-profile signatory of an open letter signed by more than 50 lawyers and legal experts saying such a finding would be “wrong in principle”.
“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.”
As well as harsher sentences, if Johnson finds a terrorist connection, the four, who smashed up drones and other equipment at the Elbit Systems UK factory near Bristol, would serve a greater proportion of their sentence in prison than normal and have to notify police for life about certain changes in their personal circumstances.
Another signatory, Penny Green, a professor of law and globalisation at Queen Mary University of London, said: “It is beyond shocking that acts of criminal damage, designed to prevent the mass killing of Palestinians by Israel, are treated by the British state as acts of terror. The question we now have to ask is why British justice has been so demeaned and distorted as to stand in defence of the perpetrators of genocide.”
A judicial spokesperson said: “Judicial independence and impartiality are fundamental to the rule of law. Upon taking office, judges take the judicial oath where they swear to act ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill will’. In each case, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented to them and apply the law as it stands.”
“Judges and magistrates sentence according to the law set by parliament and the sentencing guidelines set by the independent Sentencing Council, as well as the facts of each case which may have aggravating or mitigating factors.”
“The question we now have to ask is why British justice has been so demeaned and distorted as to stand in defence of the perpetrators of genocide.”
Agreed. That is the core issue. Especially as the world’s court (ICJ) has already decided Jan 2024 there is a plausible case of genocide against Israel and (in July 2024?) that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal and must cease forthwith.
Thanks a lot Starmer! And to think you were a ‘human rights’ lawyer. What a joke.
I believe that evil manipulation of our legal system is coming from the false ‘Labour’ government, which was elected on false pretences, and probably from the discredited and widely disliked Sir Keir Starmer himself. It is part of enabling war crimes such as the genocide of the indigenous people by the ultra racist, truly terrorist, extremist and ultra zionist government of Israel.
Shocking! Absolutely shocking!
Rajiv Menon KC one of Barristers was referred for contempt of court. Simply for reminding the jury their right to acquit based on their conscience. To quote Marvin Gaye ‘What’s going on’? This is not democracy but we live in the shadow of tyrants and dictators who meddle with justice to get their way, hoping to set an example for others.
Imagine being sentenced for terrorism? Spray paint and mallets must be the new weapons of terrorism? Did these people harm the public or harm the weapons that are killing the indigenous population of Palestine – women, babies, men..
The old Bushell case of 1670 to which there is a plaque commemorating William Penn and William Mead and most importantly the Jury, which established the right of Juries to give their verdict according to their convictions.
This is law that can be manipulated by the State for their own benefit.
I am reminded of John Maclean a Scottish teacher and revolutionary who was imprisoned for opposing the First World War. On his release from prison tens and thousands of Glaswegians greeted him and he was carried through the streets. He said the following –
‘I wish no harm to any human being, but I, as one man, am going to exercise my freedom of speech. No human being on the face of the earth, no government is going to take from me my right to speak, my right to protest against wrong, my right to do everything that is for the benefit of mankind. I am not here, then, as the accused: I am here as the accuser of capitalism dripping with blood from head to foot’. 1918