This article by Nandini Naira Archer republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Committee representing activists sentenced for ‘terrorism’ tells openDemocracy ruling marks a dangerous escalation

As Justice Jeremy Johnson sentenced her to six years in prison last Friday, Leona Kamio spoke from the dock: “In order to hear the birds, the drones must be silent.”

The line was adapted from a passage by Palestinian poet Marwan Makhoul: “In order for me to write poetry that isn’t political, I must listen to the birds. And in order to hear the birds, the warplanes must be silent.”

Thirty-year-old Kamio is one of four Palestine Action defendants convicted of criminal damage during a protest at Elbit Systems’ Filton site in August 2024. Although the four had not been charged with terrorism offences and were not convicted of terrorism by a jury, Justice Johnson ruled their offences had had a “terrorism connection” and sentenced them as such. 

Samuel Corner, 23, who was convicted of criminal damage and grievous bodily harm against a police officer, was sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison. Like Kamio, 29-year-old Charlotte Head was sentenced to six years. Fatema Zainab Rajwani, 21, received five years and eight months. 

In the wake of their sentencing, openDemocracy spoke to lisa minerva luxx, of the Filton 25 Defence Committee, which supports the defendants and prisoners, coordinates public campaigns and media, and works with legal teams.

In the following interview, luxx explained how the judge’s finding of a “terrorism connection” will affect the defendants for the rest of their lives, and how it marks a major escalation in the state’s treatment of direct action and Palestine solidarity protest. 

The Filton 25 Defence Committee said the four “destroyed over 40 Israeli weapons, including killer drones” and argued that “by taking direct action, they saved lives. That is not terrorism, it is a duty.” The committee says the ruling will be appealed.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. luxx sets out the defence committee’s allegations about the relationship between the Filton case, the proscription of Palestine Action and the use of terrorism powers against direct action protesters.

Can you spell out what the terrorism finding means in practice for the defendants? How does it affect time served, release, licence conditions, prison categorisation, notification requirements and their lives after prison?

Whilst in prison, they will be categorised as Category A high-risk prisoners, which many prisons struggle to process due to the extra regulations around access to work, single-cell occupancy – to reduce contact with other prisoners lest they radicalise them – and involvement from Prevent, the UK government’s counter-extremism programme.

It also includes increased security, which will affect the post they are given and books they are permitted to read.

They have to spend two-thirds of their sentence imprisoned before being eligible for parole. But parole for Terrorism Act sentences is incredibly rare, and the defendant must denounce their political beliefs to be granted parole.

Once released on licence, they will have really strict and repressive conditions until the end of their sentence – potentially limiting who they can see, where they can go, whether they can attend meetings or protests, and how they use phones or the internet. These are often arbitrary and ridiculous, designed to be impossible to adhere to.

After that, they then go on “notification”, where they are obliged to register phone numbers, emails, car registration, travel and bank details – and any new details of all of those – for 15 years. Fatema Zainab will only be allowed to attend a mosque chosen by the police, and she will be prohibited from socialising there. 

If the defendants fail to keep up with any of these requirements, they could be sent back to prison for a further five years.

The defendants were not charged with terrorism offences and the jury did not convict them of terrorism. What are your main due process concerns about a judge applying a terrorist connection at sentencing?

Judge Johnson secured the terrorism connection finding in order to prop up the proscription of Palestine Action. At the preparatory hearing for the “terrorism link”, he allowed “influencing the government of Israel” as a factor that satisfied the test for a terrorism connection. This is contrary to the legislation, which indicates that “influencing the government” means the British government or an intergovernmental body, such as the UN.

Influencing the Israeli government was the crux of the argument for the terrorism connection hanging over the case. The backbone of that argument was: “If you are destroying a weapon, you are influencing that government by preventing them from using that weapon.”

Yet at sentencing, he pivoted to make it about the British government. This ultimately satisfied the Home Office’s appeal for the proscription of Palestine Action, which was announced only three days later.

On top of this, he allowed for Elbit employees and employees of arms companies to constitute a “section of the public” so as to satisfy the test for a terrorism connection. I don’t think I need to explain how dystopian it is to refer to weapons-makers as a legitimate “section of the public” who could be victims of intimidation.

As most people know, Johnson did not allow the defendants to tell the jury that they were facing being sentenced as terrorists, which, of course, would have made it a much different decision for them to make.

In fact, throughout the whole case, he undermined the role of the jury, in effect deciding on matters which were for the jury to decide – principles of immediacy, value judgements, and reasonableness.

What is your response to the court’s framing of the action as intended to intimidate the government or Elbit, rather than as protest or direct action against alleged British complicity in Israeli war crimes? What context do you think was excluded or misunderstood?

Direct action for Palestine Action was a means of bypassing the government and going directly to the source.

One quote that the movement used throughout training was by anthropologist and activist David Graeber: “Protest is begging the powers that be to dig a well, direct action is digging the well and daring them to stop you.”

That quote was circulated in court, as it was included in training documents for the group, which were part of the evidence served by the prosecution.

Every single defendant spoke about having exhausted all democratic means, so turning to direct action to do the job themselves and stop the flow of weapons.

Judge Johnson did not misunderstand this. He manipulated the defendants’ closing speeches and defence statements to fit a narrative that ran counter to the entire case presented in court up to that point.

What precedent does this set for the remaining Filton defendants, Palestine Action cases more broadly, and other direct action or protest movements in Britain? Are you already seeing prosecutors or police lean on this ruling?

We are yet to see the effects of this and, at present, cannot comment on how it affects the rest of the Filton defendants.

However, to illuminate the wider picture, we need to look at the timeline leading up to both the Filton arrests and the proscription of Palestine Action. Two months before the Filton action, a meeting took place that included the Crown Prosecution Service and Counter Terrorism. They discussed proscribing Palestine Action, but identified that they couldn’t proscribe the group without first proving the group was “concerned in terrorism”. In order to do this, they needed to secure some arrests under the Terrorism Act for actionists.

Then the Filton 25 arrests took place. As it transpired, the investigating officer on the case was also part of the review group for proscription. So, we say, the same officer was involved in both the criminal investigation of the Filton defendants and the process of building the case to ban Palestine Action. Judge Johnson should have acknowledged this at the abuse of process hearing in November 2025.

This entire case has been manufactured by the Home Office in order to appease the Zionist lobby and Israel’s weapons manufacturers. The use of the terrorism connection was a means of securing convictions that would satisfy the proscription.

The Filton 25 have been used as political pawns in the British government’s war against Palestine Action. Therefore, the main precedent we need to worry about here is the collusion between parties that should be entirely independent from one another when it comes to the prosecution of those effectively taking action for Palestine.

We are facing an entire establishment that, after years of meetings with the Israeli ambassador to the UK, the CEO of Elbit Systems UK, and members of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), is now doubling down on its unlawful tactics to disturb the functioning of a movement.

A free pass has been granted to use the terrorism link to satiate political bias. We expect to see more actionists imprisoned under the Terrorism Act, but we will fight this all the way.

What are the immediate legal next steps after Friday’s ruling? Are you planning to appeal the sentence, the ‘terrorist connection’ finding, the conviction, or all three – and what grounds do you think are strongest?

The lawyers will be submitting an appeal on the “terrorist connection” and conviction, but not the sentencing.

We will be sharing full announcements in the next 10 days.

This article by Nandini Naira Archer republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.