Four young people—Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Rajwani—were sentenced as terrorists this week for the crime of criminal damage. They broke into an Elbit Systems factory in Filton, near Bristol, and caused approximately £1.2 million worth of damage. They livestreamed the whole thing wearing their, now iconic, red jumpsuits and they acted in the open.
A jury of their peers, that is, Brits, convicted them of criminal damage. Not terrorism or any kind of violent disorder. Simple criminal damage.
But here is where the really nightmarish situation begins. The judge, Mr Justice Johnson, had already decided that he would add a ‘terrorist connection’ to their sentences. He did this secretly, before the verdict and the jury was never told this was being considered. The defence was never given the opportunity to address it. The conviction came down on criminal damage charges. And then the judge, alone, unilaterally, declared that these young people are terrorists. Image
I did my research and found out this has never happened before in British legal history. Direct action protesters have never been treated this way. Criminal damage has never been considered a terrorist offence. The barrister for the defence, Rajiv Menon KC, called it ‘chilling and creeping authoritarianism’.
He is not wrong.
That’s not what happened. Criminal damage conviction carries up to 10 years of jail. People usually spend in jail half of their sentence before they qualify for parole. In case of crimes with maximum penalty of 2 years or more the judge can apply “terrorist connection” aggravating factor. When applied it means the convict has to spend at least 2/3 of the sentence in jail before they qualify for parole.
The protesters are part of organization that is recognized as terrorist organization by the UK government. This was recently confirmed by the highest UK court. The judge applied “terrorist connection” aggravating factor. He did not convict them of any additional crimes or declared anyone a terrorist.
Thanks for filling in the gaps. This version of the report, like most things, is intentionally misleading.
Yeah, it’s all just propaganda intentionally pushing one sided narrative. The wording is misleading on purpose. There is valid argument against the counter-terrorism act and it’s ok to use this case to show its flaws but lying about the case is not the right way to do it.