Venezuela hits out at Trinidad and Tobago in oil spill spat
Venezuela raises alarm over oil spill from Trinidad and Tobago, threatening ecosystems and fishing.
Al Jazeera English1 min read
Pro-Palestine activists sentenced as terrorists over damage at Israeli arms factory in UK
TL;DR
Four pro-Palestine activists were sentenced as terrorists for causing £1.2m damage at an Israeli arms factory in the UK. The judge ruled their actions were intended to intimidate the government and advance a political cause.
Key points
- Four activists sentenced as terrorists for damaging an arms factory
- Damage estimated at £1.2 million, affecting military assets
- Judge cited intent to intimidate the UK government
- One activist convicted of grievous bodily harm
- Actions linked to advancing a political cause
Mentioned in this story
Palestine ActionElbit Systems
Four Palestine Action activists who smashed up drones and other equipment at an Israeli arms manufacturer’s UK factory will be sentenced as terrorists, a judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Johnson made the ruling at a sentencing hearing on Friday for Samuel Corner, 23, Charlotte Head, 30, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, who were all found guilty of criminal damage last month in relation to a 2024 break-in at the Elbit Systems UK site in Gloucestershire. Corner was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent for striking Sgt Kate Evans with a sledgehammer.
A report relied on by the prosecution at Friday’s sentencing hearing said the raid on the factory had caused £1.2m of damage, including to 41 military assets. The report referred to £395,056 of damage to six units in an unnamed drone system as well as damage to other unmanned aerial vehicles.
Announcing his finding of a “terrorist connection” under section 69 of the Sentencing Act, ahead of deciding on the sentences, Johnson said: “I am sure that each defendant’s offence of criminal damage involved serious damage to property, was designed to intimidate the UK government and a section of the public [Elbit employees and those of other businesses linked to Elbit] and was for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause.”
He added that the fact that each acted out of conscience would be taken into account when imposting sentence.
Representing Head, Rajiv Menon KC had told Johnson that it was unprecedented for the prosecution to apply for a judge to sentence a defendant as a terrorist for a non-violent offence. Menon said it was “an invitation to chilling, creeping authoritarianism that undermines the very fabric of our society”.
In written arguments, Mira Hammad KC, representing Kamio, said the defendants had initially been arrested on suspicion of involvement in acts of terrorism but not charged with those offences “showing that a deliberate decision was taken not to submit the crown’s case [that there was terrorism] to the arbitrament of a jury …[therefore] the court should not allow the crown to use [section 69] as a vehicle for enhancing sentence in circumstances where it has determined that a conviction for the same offence by the jury is unlikely”.
Tom Wainwright KC, representing Corner, said a terrorist connection finding against the defendants would also mean the suffragettes, the Greenham Common women and the Trident Ploughshares movement were terrorists. “It’s wrong for someone to be sentenced for a more serious offence of which they have not been convicted,” he added.
Q&A
What were the charges against the Palestine Action activists?
The activists were charged with criminal damage and one was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent.
How much damage did the activists cause at the Elbit Systems factory?
The activists caused £1.2 million in damage, including to military assets and drone systems.
What did the judge say about the activists' actions?
The judge stated that their actions were designed to intimidate the UK government and advance a political cause, leading to a ruling of a 'terrorist connection.'
What is the significance of the sentencing under the Sentencing Act?
The sentencing under section 69 of the Sentencing Act indicates that the court recognized the actions as terrorism, which can lead to more severe penalties.
