UK Judge Flags Terror Link in Elbit Protest Case

Four Palestine Action activists convicted of criminal damage over a break-in at an Elbit Systems UK site near Bristol could be sentenced under terrorism provisions after a judge found there appeared to be a “terrorist connection” to their offences, a ruling that was not disclosed to jurors during two trials. The defendants — Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21 — were convicted last week after a retrial over the 2024 incident.

Reporting restrictions that had kept the pre-trial finding secret were lifted on Tuesday.

Mr Justice Johnson made the terrorism-connection ruling in March 2025, before the first trial. The jury did not hear about it, and the restriction remained in place during the retrial, even though the protest took place before Palestine Action was proscribed.

A separate determination will be made at sentencing, using the criminal standard of proof, on whether the offences had a terrorism connection under Section 1(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. If the court confirms that connection, the sentencing regime and release conditions could differ significantly from those applied in non-terrorism cases.

How a terrorism finding could affect sentencing

If the court finds a terrorism connection at sentencing, the four would be required to serve their full prison terms, unless a parole board approved release after they had completed two-thirds of their sentence. Non-terrorist prisoners usually serve 40% of their sentence.

In that scenario, parole would depend on the parole board being satisfied the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs, according to the account of the legal framework presented in court reporting.

Potential lifetime restrictions after release

A terrorism designation could also mean the defendants are recorded as terrorists for life. That could require them to register with police for any new device, bank account, email address or relationship, and could expose them to re-imprisonment if they fail to comply.

The jury at Woolwich Crown Court was not told those consequences were a possibility when it convicted the defendants of criminal damage for damaging drones and other equipment at the Elbit site — an offence that is not ordinarily treated as a terrorism charge.

The next key milestone will be the sentencing hearing, when the court will decide whether the legal threshold for a terrorism connection has been met and what that means for imprisonment and post-release conditions.