英国检方寻求按反恐量刑处理巴克莱门店抗议破坏案

Prosecutors call for Barclays protesters to be sentenced under UK terror laws
Prosecutors are pushing for five Palestine Action activists who vandalised a Barclays branch in Burnley to be sentenced under contentious terrorism laws, in the latest case of the UK’s expanding crackdown on protesters.
The Crown Prosecution Service has filed a submission arguing for tougher punishment, citing government guidelines that allow an individual judge to determine the length of the sentence based on whether the crime is deemed to have a “terrorist connection”.
This is despite no formal terrorism charges being brought against the defendants, who were found guilty last month of carrying out criminal damage at a Barclays branch in August 2024 and are due to be sentenced this September.
The group caused about £212,000 worth of damage by spraying red paint and smashing windows while a “distressed” security guard remained inside the bank, according to documents seen by the FT.
Four of the activists who attacked the bank were in their late twenties and early thirties while the fifth, who served as a getaway driver, is aged 70.
The incident was filmed and shared by the group as part of a Palestine Action campaign that targeted Barclays because of its links to Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. The bank has since offloaded all of its shares in Elbit, according to SEC filings.
The definition of terrorism in English law can encompass serious damage to property if it is carried out for a political cause with an intent to influence government or intimidate the public.
According to documents seen by the FT, Judge Philip Parry, overseeing the Barclays case, asked both sides to submit sentencing arguments following a separate trial involving Palestine Action members who had sabotaged an Elbit factory, an incident in which a police officer suffered serious injuries.
The judge hearing that case used legislation introduced in 2021 to sentence the defendants as terrorists in a move that prompted outrage from human rights groups.
At the time the legislation was introduced, ministers argued that consideration of aggravating factors at sentencing, such as racial hate, was already a routine matter for judges rather than juries.
Since the “terrorist connection” is treated as an aggravating factor for sentencing rather than a standalone charge, the jury is not asked to weigh in.
But human rights organisations have expressed alarm at what they say is a legal loophole that broadens the definition of terrorism and circumvents juries.
Akiko Hart, director of civil rights group Liberty, said the sentencing push was indicative of “deep flaws in the UK’s counterterror laws”.
“Direct action has always been a feature of protests, but the line between direct action and terrorism is becoming dangerously blurred, and this confusion will leave many people too afraid to stand up for what they believe in,” she added.
Mohammed Malik, one of the five convicted of criminal damage over the Barclays incident, said: “We have not been charged with, nor convicted of, any terrorism offence. At no point during our trial did the prosecution seek to pursue anything to do with terrorism, and the jury were kept completely in the dark.”
Defence lawyers have argued that the vandalism of a high street shopfront did not meet the threshold of terrorism. The defence submission claimed that the designation of terrorism would be a breach of procedure as it had not been introduced by the prosecution before evidence was heard in the case.
Prosecutors conceded they had chosen not to pursue a terror connection during the trial, but they argued that during testimony the defendants had raised the issue of terrorism by declaring their affiliation with Palestine Action.
The vandalism occurred before Palestine Action was designated as a proscribed terrorist organisation by the UK government in July 2025.
In February, the High Court ruled that the proscription of the group was unlawful, but the decision was reversed on appeal in June.
The plaintiff in the case, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, is seeking to have the issue brought before the UK’s Supreme Court.
The CPS declined to comment.