Unprecedented Terrorism Sentencing for Protesters in Bristol
In a landmark case this month at a Bristol courtroom, four activists from Palestine Action were sentenced with a “terrorist connection” enhancement despite being convicted solely of criminal damage related to their protest actions. The activists had damaged Israeli-made military drones at an Elbit Systems factory but were never charged or tried for terrorism. Nevertheless, a judge applied a terrorism-related sentencing mechanism, marking an unprecedented shift in how UK law treats protest-related offences.
The case, reported by The Intercept, signals a redrawing of the boundaries for terrorism under British legislation. Uniquely, this adjustment was made through a sentencing tool, bypassing the usual jury trial process that establishes terrorist intent.
The mechanism: section 69 of the Sentencing Act
Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 permits judges to apply a “terrorist connection” enhancement to offences not formally tried as terrorism. This enhancement can be imposed after conviction, without a jury determining if the defendant acted with terrorist intent or the prosecution explicitly charging terrorism-related offences. Once applied, it triggers extended notification obligations for the convicted individuals, requiring them to report personal information, financial details, and travel plans to police authorities well beyond their release date.
Historically, section 69 had been used for offences such as bomb hoaxes or weapons possession. Its use in relation to criminal damage at a protest site represents a legal first in the UK.
Application to the Filton 25 activists
Four of the so-called Filton 25 activists received the section 69 enhancement following their August 2024 raid on the Elbit Systems factory near Bristol. The factory produces components for drones deployed by the Israeli military over Gaza. Their sentences were extended beyond their time served on remand, with one additionally sentenced for assaulting a police officer during the raid.
Notably, Novara Media first revealed that the jury was not informed that a conviction for criminal damage would expose the defendants to terrorism-related sentencing enhancements. Reporting restrictions kept this critical fact from the British public until mid-May 2026.
The trial was conducted under stringent judicial limitations. The defence was heavily constrained: defendants were barred from informing the jury about Elbit Systems’ extensive role in supplying drones to the Israeli military, as detailed by Al Jazeera. They could not reference the drones’ documented use against Palestinian civilians, reported by Euro-Med Monitor, nor discuss events in Gaza following 7 October 2023. Legal doctrines that might have supported their defence were also prohibited. Consequently, most defendants chose to represent themselves. The jury had already acquitted them of more serious charges.
Wider institutional context and repercussions
This sentencing fits into a broader crackdown on Palestine Action supporters. Thousands have been arrested at demonstrations merely for displaying supportive signs after the group was proscribed under the UK Terrorism Act. A British High Court ruled this proscription unlawful in February 2026, but the ban remains active pending government appeal. Over 100 arrests occurred outside the sentencing hearing alone.
Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, criticized the court’s approach as an attempt to label activists as terrorists through a manipulated judicial process. Amnesty International UK also condemned the sentencing as disproportionate, emphasizing that criminal damage has never before been classified as terrorism by the UK justice system.
Implications of the precedent
The broader significance lies in the precedent this case sets. The section 69 enhancement now permits judges to attach terrorist connections to protest-related property damage without the procedural safeguards of a full terrorism trial. This means no jury determination of intent, no requirement to inform jurors of the terrorism implications, and judicial discretion to exclude the political and humanitarian background that would normally contextualize sentencing.
In practical terms, individuals who damage property linked to foreign military interests during protests can now be branded with a terrorist connection, subject to onerous post-release monitoring such as mandatory disclosure of travel and financial information. This mechanism can be employed repeatedly in future cases, again without juries being made aware of the full consequences of their verdicts.
For more detailed coverage and ongoing updates, see Here.
