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
    14·
    2 days ago

    Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.caEnglish
      115·
      2 days ago

      So you don’t think that the intent of the original crime doesn’t apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?

      Or do you know that you’re wrong and can’t admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?

      • acargitz@lemmy.caEnglish
        10·
        1 day ago

        The double negative is breaking my brain.

        So, taking into account that:

        Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage.

        All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before he heard the evidence, meaning the defendants weren’t allowed to argue that their actions were legally justified as they acted to save lives and prevent a greater crime. He also barred the defendants from telling the jury about their motivations for taking action, their emotional reactions to the massacres of Palestinians or the illegality of Israel’s actions.

        It seems that in this case the intent didn’t matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.

        Can’t have it both ways mate.

        EDIT: Turns out the leading UK lawyers are saying the exact same things:

        “It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.

        “The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”

        Can’t have it both ways mate.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.caEnglish
          15·
          21 hours ago

          Things are often withheld from the jury. Do you have no familiarity with the legal system.

          Their intent was to influence government through property damage which escalated to violence.

          Do you think Israel’s intent of saving lives by destroying Hezbollah and Hamas is justified?. These organizations have weapons and kill people. Israel is destroying their weapons. Some people might get hurt or killed while they do this, but by your logic everything is justified if your intent is to destroy weapons to save lives.

          If these criminal’s acts are justified because their intent was to “save lives” then the above paragraph is equally valid since it follows the same logic.

          You can’t have it both ways. Either both Israel’s and this group’s acts of violence are justified or neither are justified. Which is it?