FIVE Palestine Action activists convicted of causing more than £200,000 of damage to a Barclays bank branch could be sentenced as terrorists, it emerged today.

Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Mohammed Malik, 26, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted last month of criminal damage after targeting the bank in St James’s Street, Burnley, in August 2024.

During their trial, the activists described their ties to Palestine Action, telling jurors the 2am protest was designed to press Barclays into withdrawing financial support for Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The activists were masked and armed with hammers during the protest, which they filmed, causing damage valued at £212,805.14.

Judge Philip Parry will consider whether the crime had a “terrorist connection” at sentencing in September.

It follows a ruling in May at Woolwich Crown Court that Palestine Action activists who caused £1.2 million of damage at an Elbit factory near Bristol should be sentenced as terrorists.

Judge Parry is understood to have specifically cited that ruling when asking for submissions on a potential terrorist connection in this case.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski said: “Spraying red paint on a Barclays branch over its investments in Israel’s largest weapons firm, which is arming the genocide against the Palestinian people, is not terrorism.”

He added that fears the Woolwich ruling would set “an extremely dangerous precedent” were “already being realised.”

Liberty director Akiko Hart said: “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.

“When it’s not clear what counts as terrorism, public trust collapses and without trust, counter-terror laws simply won’t work.

“There is an urgent need to update the current definition of terrorism to enable current and future governments to uphold their duty to safeguard the public and national security, whilst protecting people’s rights and preventing overreach.”

The defendants’ lawyers are expected to argue the attack was not serious enough to be marked as terrorism, and that the alleged terror link should have been raised earlier in proceedings.

If sentenced as terrorists, the activists would face longer jail terms, lose the right to automatic early release, and face extended police monitoring on licence.