TPC Staff
The Palestine Chronicle / June 13, 2026
Four Palestine Action activists were sentenced to prison after a British court ruled that their protest against Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems had a “terrorist connection.”
Court imposes lengthy prison sentences
A British court on Friday sentenced four Palestine Action activists for their involvement in a 2024 break-in at an Elbit Systems UK facility in Filton, Gloucestershire, The Guardian reported.
Charlotte Head (30) and Leona Kamio (30) were each sentenced to five years in prison. Fatema Rajwani (21) received a sentence of four years and eight months.
Samuel Corner (23) was sentenced to seven years and eight months after also being convicted of causing “grievous bodily harm” without intent during the incident.
According to evidence presented by prosecutors, the action caused an estimated £1.2 million in damage, including damage to drone systems and other military equipment manufactured by Elbit Systems, one of Israel’s largest arms companies.
British judge Justice Johnson described the operation as a “carefully planned and highly sophisticated attack” and ruled that the offenses carried a terrorist connection under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act.
The finding means the activists will be required to serve at least two-thirds of their sentences before becoming eligible for release and will remain subject to terrorism notification requirements for 15 years.
Defense lawyers challenge ‘terrorist’ designation
Lawyers representing the activists strongly challenged the prosecution’s request for a terrorism finding.
Rajiv Menon KC, representing Head, reportedly argued that applying terrorism provisions to an act of criminal damage was unprecedented and warned that it amounted to a dangerous expansion of state powers.
Other defense lawyers argued that such reasoning could have historically categorized protest movements, including the suffragettes, the Greenham Common peace activists and anti-nuclear campaigners as terrorists.
During proceedings, defense counsel emphasized that the activists had acted against a company whose military equipment has been linked to Israel’s war on Gaza.
Tom Wainwright KC, representing Corner, told the court that the defendants believed they were acting to prevent further deaths, The Guardian reported.
The ruling comes amid a separate legal dispute over the status of Palestine Action itself.
In April, the High Court ruled that the British government’s decision to classify Palestine Action as a terrorist organization was unlawful, a decision the government has appealed.
While the activists in the Elbit case were not convicted of terrorism offenses, the judge concluded that their actions carried a “terrorist connection” for sentencing purposes.
Amnesty warns of dangerous precedent
Amnesty International condemned the ruling, warning that treating direct-action protesters as terrorists could have far-reaching consequences for civil liberties in Britain.
Kerry Moscogiuri, Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK, said prosecutors were attempting to establish a precedent for how future protesters could be treated.
“Criminal damage has never been treated as terrorism within the UK justice system before and it is dangerous to treat them as the same thing,” Moscogiuri said.
She warned that the decision represented another step in what Amnesty described as a broader crackdown on the right to protest.
The organization argued that UK courts have historically distinguished politically motivated acts of civil disobedience from ordinary criminality and have generally sought to balance criminal law with protections for freedom of expression and assembly.
Protests outside court
Approximately 500 supporters gathered outside Woolwich Crown Court during the sentencing hearing.
Many carried signs reading “Saving Lives Is Not Terrorism” and expressed solidarity with the activists.
According to reports, more than 100 people were arrested on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action, which remains proscribed under Britain’s Terrorism Act while legal challenges to the ban continue.
The case has intensified debate in Britain over the expanding use of terrorism legislation and whether direct-action protests targeting companies linked to Israel’s military operations should be treated as national security offenses.
