FOUR Palestine Action activists who caused £1.2 million in damage to an Israel-based defence firm’s UK factory will seek to challenge their sentences in the Court of Appeal, their solicitor has said.
Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 24, Leona Kamio, 31, and Fatema Rajwani, 22, used sledgehammers and crowbars to destroy computers, drones and other equipment at the Elbit Systems site near Bristol in August 2024.
Corner, a former student at Oxford, struck police officer Kate Evans twice on the back with a seven pound sledgehammer, leaving her with a fractured spine.
In June, Justice Johnson jailed Corner for seven years and eight months for criminal damage and causing grievous bodily harm, while Head and Kamio were jailed for five years and Rajwani for four years and eight months for criminal damage.
The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage have been classified as having a terrorist connection.
Their solicitor Simon Natas said at a press conference on Thursday they will seek permission to appeal against “excessive” sentences, saying a judge was wrong in law to classify their actions as terrorism.
The judge’s ruling that the raid amounted to an “act of terrorism” means the four activists will have to serve at least two thirds of their sentences and will have to face Parole Board hearings to secure their release from prison.
They will also spend an extra year on licence after the end of their prison terms and be subject to terrorist notification requirements for 15 years.
Defendants seeking to appeal against an excessive sentence must be given permission to do so by the Court of Appeal before an appeal is considered.
The Court of Appeal said an application for permission to appeal has been received and is being prepared for consideration by a single judge.
Natas told the press conference he has been defending protest cases for more than 15 years for groups such as Extinction Rebellion and direct action had never before been classified as terrorism.
He said: “It would have been unthinkable to anyone involved in those cases that they would have been considered to have a terrorist connection.”
He said: “We say there was no intention to influence the government or intimidate a section of the public – because the intention here was to destroy weapons due to be sent to Israel.”
