United Kingdom – Deterrent Sentences for Palestine Action Activists
- Mark Sandler
- Jun 17
- 3 min read
Four Palestine Action activists were sentenced to significant jail terms after causing substantial damage at the UK site of the Elbit Systems Factory, an Israeli-based defence firm in August 2024.
Samuel Corner was sentenced to a total term of eight years and eight months for criminal damage and inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police sergeant. This is comprised of three years and eight months imprisonment for the latter offence, and a special custodial term of another five years for criminal damage. Corner fractured Sgt. Kate Evan’s spine with a sledgehammer in the raid. Evans, whose life and career have been devastated by the attack’s impact, told the court that Corner attempted to “justify his actions with baseless and offensive claims that [she] was complicit in genocide.” The judge found that Corner had no substantial and genuine remorse for this attack.
Charlotte Head and Leona Kamio were each sentenced to a special custodial sentence of 6 years less 45 days of pre-trial custody, and Fatema Rajwani was sentenced to a special custodial sentence of 5 years and eight months, less 45 days.
The presiding judge found as an aggravating circumstance that the crimes had a terrorist connection, pursuant to section 69 of the U.K’s Sentencing Act 2000, elevating the amount of time in jail each accused must serve before being eligible for release. The crimes were “designed to influence the U.K. government and also to intimidate a section of the public and [were done] for the purpose of advancing an ideological or political cause.” This aggravating circumstance means that the accused must serve at least two-thirds of their special custody sentences in jail.
The presiding judge also found that the accused were reckless as to whether injury was caused to people, including any security guard who might have got in the way. He noted that the accused took steps, including video recording the crimes for social media, to glorify criminality and vigilantism and lend support to Palestine Action’s agenda which now included terrorism.
Amnesty International condemned the sentences imposed, stressing that they took place in the context of protest activities. But as the court observed, “we all live under the rule of law… the law does not tolerate vigilantism. Those who believe that Elbit is acting unlawfully are not entitled to take the law into their own hands… Your offending did not amount to an act of civil disobedience where conscientious motivation can be treated as mitigation. In such cases, the offenders act with restraint, recognize that their conduct is contrary to the law, and accept the consequences of their actions. You acted with demonstrative excess and no restraint, you maintain that your conduct was lawful, and you refuse to accept the consequences of your actions.”
Ends-justify-the-means vigilantism has also been recognized as an aggravating circumstance on sentencing in Canada, although the sentences imposed for property damage cases have been substantially less severe than reflected in the most recent U.K. decision.
Palestine Action is a Terrorist Organization
In a related development, this past week, the U.K. Court of Appeal unanimously upheld as lawful the government’s designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. The court concluded that the designation survived a proportionality analysis (similar to that employed in Canada in determining whether a Charter infringement imposed by law represents a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter).
The court was therefore required to consider whether the policy objective in proscribing Palestine Action outweighed any encroachment on rights. The court outlined in detail the activities of Palestine Action that support its designation as a terrorist group. It balanced the free speech and free assembly rights of individuals and the alleged “chilling effect” that proscription might have.
However, it concluded that there were no less intrusive measures to which the Home Secretary should have resorted as an alternative to proscription. In an important component of the decision, it also held that the Home Secretary was entitled to consider the operational benefits of proscription for law enforcement in her decision-making process.
-30-
About the Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.