The ruling marks the first time in UK legal history that protesters convicted of criminal damage face a 'terrorism connection' upon sentencing

A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.

The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.

On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.

In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an “appearance” of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.

  • acargitz@lemmy.caEnglish
    111·
    11 hours ago

    I’m not “arguing” anything in front of any court and I’m not saying the judge did not follow the letter of the law. Top UK lawyers are making the case that as tried this case poses grave constitutional threats. And they’re going to litigate this as far as it goes.

    What I am saying is that what you’re presenting as a slam dunk …isn’t. This is unprecedented (the law is from 2020 and it’s the first time it’s used in such a case in such a way) and serious people are raising serious issues.

    EDIT: oh and by the way, at the end of the day, legal schmegal, the Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists. They are activists putting their lives between Elbit’s butcher machines and Palestinian genocide victims. The cop who got injured should not have been in that Elbit factory because Elbit should not be allowed to build genocide machines period. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter really does apply here, and these are indeed freedom fighters. History will vindicate them. One day, everyone will have always been against this, but these folks will actually have the receipts. Tiocfaidh ár lá.

      • acargitz@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        31 minutes ago

        What I find morally dubious is why Ukrainians are put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in genocide.

        Russia is not the only barbarian in town.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
      24·
      7 hours ago

      What I am saying is that what you’re presenting as a slam dunk …isn’t

      Except it is. We’re talking about some basic legal concepts here: charges, verdict, sentencing and aggravating factors. To claim that the judge withheld something from the jurors and applied additional charges after the verdict is simply a lie. He applied aggravating factors during the sentencing. Something the law clearly allows him to do in this case.

      Now I’m sure some lawyers will argue that the whole concept of terrorist connection as aggravating factor is wrong but this is not what this post or articles claim. They claim something that is clearly false.

      I’m also not talking who is and isn’t morally right. If you want to address what I’m talking here about (is terrorist connection additional charge or an aggravating factor?) then I’m happy to listen. If you want to talk about something else then please reply to someone else.