Effective civil disobedience is now Terrorism – Welcome to the UK in the 2020’s.

Health for XR statement in solidarity with the Barclays 5

Back in July 2022 6 members of Health for XR (“HXR 6”) broke 8 windows of JPMorgan’s London HQ’s to protest their lead role in financing fossil fuel extraction. JPMorgan have made no changes to their investment portfolio.

In 2024, five Palestine Action(PA) activists broke the windows of Barclays’ Burnley branch as part  of a campaign to protest the bank’s shares in Elbit systems, the Israeli military’s leading weapon’s manufacturer. Soon after, Barclays dropped its shares in Elbit systems.

In their 2026 trial for breaking windows at JPMorgan bank, the “HXR 6” were found not guilty despite having no defence in law. Their Jury used their right to Jury equity to acquit us according to their conscience. 

In their trial in 2026, the PA “Barclay’s 5” activists were also denied a defence in law. However, when their jury inquired of the judge whether they were allowed to acquit according to their conscience they were told they were not. This is in contradiction to the Bushel case of 1670 which established the right of Jury equity, a right upheld by the high court in 2025. The jury subsequently returned guilty verdicts.

The Barclays 5 are now due to be sentenced in September. Their judge, Phillip Parry, has scheduled a pre-sentence hearing on the 21st August to consider whether he should apply a “terrorism connection” during sentencing. This means they could face being sentenced for up to 10 years imprisonment and being labelled as “terrorists” resulting in restrictive custodial conditions and extended restrictions on their civil liberties for up to 15 years after their release.

Palestine Action was proscribed almost a year after the five broke Barclays’ windows. They were not tried under terrorism legislation. They were not convicted of terrorism offences. A terrorism connection was never suggested to the Jury who convicted them of ‘Criminal Damage’.

How is this possible?

The last 6 years have seen the increasing repression of protest in the UK, both through the introduction of new laws that have criminalised previously legal protest, and through the courts, which have progressively removed the legal framework which enabled protestors to effectively defend themselves. During this period, the sentencing of protestors has become more severe, with custodial sentences, once rare, now commonplace. 

The current sentencing of the Barclays 5, and the Filton 4 before them in June this year, is the latest and most concerning development in this trajectory of repression and control. The Filton sentencing in June saw, for the first time, the use of Section 69 of the 2020 sentencing act which allows the retrospective application of a “terrorist connection” to defendants not convicted or charged with terrorism. Effectively, this act allows a judge to sentence protestors (or for that matter anyone) as terrorists without the prosecution having to actually prove to a jury that there is any terrorism connection to their actions.

Thus, even as Israel has flaunted international law and conducted a UN-recognised genocide against the Palestinian people with UK government support, those protesting these breaches of international law have been denied a legal framework within which to defend themselves effectively in court. They now face being retrospectively sentenced as terrorists despite having never faced a terrorist charge. 

It is certainly worth asking in whose interest these laws are being drafted and under whose influence they are being applied?

The gross injustice of labelling those protesting a genocide as terrorists is further highlighted by the current policy of early release which has seen 1000’s of prisoners, including those convicted of violent crimes, released early to relieve prison over-crowding. Climate and Palestine solidarity protestors are not a danger to the public, yet the government and judiciary have pursued measures to increase their incarceration. Such a trajectory is transparently designed to protect the vested interests of the Israeli war machine,  weapon and fossil fuel industries. While the willingness of the government to protect powerful vested interests to the detriment of the UK public may be nothing new, recent developments that have seen our government label opposition voices as terrorists should be deeply concerning to us all. It appears to be a tactic taken directly from the play-book of authoritarian regimes, like Russia, that we in the UK are so quick to condemn.

Cracking windows was not terrorism in 1912 when over 300 women broke windows in a mass demonstration to demand the vote for women. Cracking windows was not terrorism in 2022 when healthworkers broke the windows of JPMorgan to demand climate action, and cracking windows was not terrorism in 2024 when the Barclays 5 broke Barclays windows to demand that they stop profiting from the Gazan Genocide. 

If on the 21st August, Judge Parry grants himself the right to apply a terrorist connection to the sentencing of the Barclays 5; Brendon O’Hagan, 28; Amanda Kelly, 31; Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31; Mohammed Malik, 28; and Alma Yaniv, 70, will face up to 10 years imprisonment, no chance of early bail, harsher conditions during incarceration, and restrictions to their civil liberties for up to 15 years after their release. 

This is not just a gross miscarriage of justice and a tragedy for these protestors and their families.

This is yet another direct attack on our civil liberties and sets a frightening new precedent in which terrorism legislation is used to control and repress political dissent.

What can you do to support?

• Share this post and make sure everyone is informed of this injustice
• Write to your MP to demand:
  • An urgent review of the Terrorism Act (2000) and the Sentencing Act (2020)
  • De-proscription of Palestine Action
  • An end to the authoritarian suppression of protest
• Support the Barclays 5’s fundraiser and the Filton 25 support fund