Law experts, family members and a British medic who worked in Gaza during Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians gathered in London on Thursday 3 September 2026. They came together to mark the launch of an appeal by four Palestine Action prisoners against the court’s “grotesque” decision to sentence them as terrorists – despite them being convicted only of criminal damage to an Israeli-owned weapons factory. The judge in the trial banned press and lawyers from informing the jury of the sentencing plan until the verdict was in.
Palestine Action launch appeal
Speakers included:
- Simon Natas, partner at ITN solicitors which represents the four Palestine Action prisoners
- Sukaina Rajwani, mother of imprisoned Fatema Zainab Rajwani
- Emma Kamio, mother of imprisoned Ellie Kamio
- Dr Shahd Hammouri, lecturer on international law at the University of Kent and international legal consultant
- Dr James Smith, emergency doctor who has worked in Gaza and lecturer on humanitarian policy
A statement was also read out from well-known barrister Michael Mansfield KC.
“Dangerous precedent”
The sentencing decision and the secrecy around it have set a “dangerous precedent” that has led to prosecutors and judges seeking a ‘terrorist connection’ in other Palestine Action cases. Seven people have recently been charged by Scottish prosecutors with malicious damage “having a terrorism connection”, after a Palestine Action paint protest at Donald Trump’s golf course in March 2025 – more than a year before the group was proscribed. A successful appeal by the Filton 4 could prevent terrorism sentences being applied to direct action cases involving property damage.
Judge Jeremy Johnson’s decision to sentence the four appellants as terrorists was based on the “serious property damage” clause of the unfit Terrorism Act 2000. He claimed that damage to 40 Israeli weapons inside Elbit’s Israeli weapons facility, including quadcopter drones, was done to “influence the government” and “intimidate a section of the public [Elbit Systems]”. This claim essentially treats protest itself as terrorism, as the aim of protest is to influence government.
The ‘enhanced’ ‘terror’ sentencing increased the time the four appellants’ will serve in prison. It also means that they will almost certainly likely serve their whole sentence in prison and would be subject to notification requirements for 15 years upon release. These requirements include being obliged to notify police of any new device, bank account, address, holiday or relationship.
The appeal is based on the following points of law and process quoted from the appeal submissions:
The Judge was wrong to admit the statement and report of Richard Kempster, a forensic consultant instructed by the insurers of Elbit Systems, as evidence of the extent of harm caused by the defendants
The Judge was wrong in law to find that the offence of criminal damage in this case had a terrorist connection, within the meaning of s.69 Sentencing Act (SA) 2020
The terrorist connection scheme in s.69 SA 2024 is incompatible with the requirements of legal certainty guaranteed by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If the court were to accept that s.69 scheme is incompatible with Article 7, it is accepted on the behalf of the four that s.69(4)(b) SA 2020, which permits a terrorist connection to be considered in respect of any non-terrorist offence punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years, cannot be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights pursuant to s.3 Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 and the Court should, therefore, make a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to s.4 HRA 1998.
The procedure by which the Judge arrived at his finding that there was a terrorism connection was unfair and contrary to Article 6 ECHR and principles of natural justice
The sentences were manifestly excessive
The Judge should have recused himself from sentencing Charlotte Head given his hostility towards her leading counsel, Rajiv Menon KC, or, alternatively, given the appearance of hostility towards him
Activist photographer ‘BetterThanReal’ interviewed Asim Qureshi of human rights advocacy organisation CAGE. Qureshi said that the UK government is aping the US in politicising trials and the sentencing process in a gross abuse of judicial power:
https://www.thecanary.co/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Qureshi-Cage-Subbed-hb.mp4
Declassified UK also published a short explainer here.
By Skwawkbox
From Canary via This RSS Feed.