This month, in a Bristol courtroom, a judge used a sentencing tool that had never before been applied to protest-related criminal damage in British legal history. Four Palestine Action activists, already convicted solely for damaging Israeli-made military drones at an Elbit Systems factory, appeared before the judge to link a “terrorist link” to their offenses. They had not been tried for terrorism. No jury was asked whether they had acted with terrorist intent. They were still condemned as terrorists.
The case, as reported by The Intercept, redefines the threshold for what is considered terrorism under British law. This is done through a sentencing mechanism rather than a jury trial.
Photo by Shane Raynor on Pexels
The mechanism: section 69 of the Sentencing Act
Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 allows a judge to apply a “terrorist nexus” enhancement to a non-terrorist offense at the sentencing stage. The enhancement does not require a jury to find that the defendant acted with terrorist intent. It is not necessary for the prosecution to bring charges of terrorism. It is determined by a judge after conviction. It imposes extensive reporting requirements for terrorist acts, forcing those convicted to tell police their personal information, finances and travel plans long after their release.
Until now, this enhancement has been used alongside offenses such as bomb hoaxes or weapons-related charges. Its application to criminal damage at a protest site is unprecedented.
How the improvement was applied to the Filton 25
A judge applied the Section 69 enhancement to four members of the so-called Filton 25 for their role in the August 2024 raid on the Bristol-area Elbit factory, a site that makes components for drones that the Israeli military flies over Gaza. The activists risk additional years in prison on top of the sentence already served in pre-trial detention. A defendant was given a new sentence for hitting a police officer during the raid.
Importantly, as Novara Media first reported, the jury was not informed that a guilty verdict on criminal damage charges would expose the defendants to a terrorism conviction. Reporting restrictions kept the topic out of British media until May 12.
The trial itself was surrounded by court orders. The defense was reduced to almost nothing. The defendants were unable to tell the jury about Elbit Systems’ role in supplying the majority of drones used by the Israeli military. They could not describe how quadcopter drones were used against Palestinian civilians. They could not refer to events in Gaza after October 7, 2023. The defense was also prohibited from invoking certain legal doctrines. Most of the defendants ultimately chose to represent themselves. The jury had already cleared them of heavier charges.
The institutional architecture around Palestine Action
Sentencing is part of a broader enforcement structure. Thousands of people have been arrested at rallies for carrying signs expressing support for Palestine Action, after the group was banned under the terrorism law. A British High Court ruled the ban illegal in February. The ban remains in place pending an appeal from the government. More than 100 people were arrested outside of the sentencing hearing.
Photo by YOUSSEF elbelghiti on Pexels
Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, told Novara Media that the case represents an attempt to treat activists as terrorists through what she called a manipulated legal process. Amnesty International UK described the sentence as disproportionate, pointing out that criminal damage had never been treated as terrorism within the UK justice system before.
What the precedent allows
The structural importance lies in what follows. The framework of Article 69 now extends to property damage at protest sites without the procedural safeguards of a full counterterrorism prosecution. No jury determination of terrorist intent. No obligation to disclose issues to jurors. Judicial discretion to exclude the political and humanitarian context that would normally inform sentencing.
In practice, this means that a person who smashes a window at a factory linked to a foreign army can now leave court with a terrorist link tag attached to their record, forced for years to file their travel plans and banking details with the police. The same mechanism will be available next time. Again, the jury does not need to be told this.
For more information, you can read the full article here.
“`
