Three women have been charged under the Terrorism Act following a dramatic incident in which a van was driven into the perimeter fence of the Leonardo defence facility on Ferry Road in Edinburgh last week.
The incident occurred on the morning of Tuesday 15 July and involved a blue Ford Transit van breaching the security fence of the site, which employs around 1,800 people and plays a critical role in developing radars and countermeasure systems for military aircraft.
Shortly after the incident, a pro-Palestinian activist group named Shut Down Leonardo Edinburgh claimed responsibility. In an online statement, the group alleged that Leonardo supplies weapons and aircraft to Israel and said their objective was to disrupt operations at the facility.
Images shared on social media appeared to show individuals standing on top of the van following the crash. The three women – aged 31, 34 and 42 – were arrested at the scene and, according to Police Scotland, have now been formally charged under terrorism legislation. They are due to appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday 21 July.
Police Scotland’s Counter Terrorism Unit is leading the investigation. In a statement issued on Friday, the force said it was appealing for information related to two vehicles – the Ford Transit involved in the incident and a white Honda CR-Z recovered from a car park in the Gorgie Road area.
“As part of our investigation, officers are appealing for information to trace the movements of a blue Ford Transit van in the Gorgie Road area on Monday 14 July and prior to the incident on Tuesday 15 July,” the statement said. “They are also keen to trace the movements of a white Honda CR-Z on these dates.”
The force added that anyone who witnessed the incident or who may have dashcam footage from the area is asked to contact police via 101, quoting reference 0416 of 15 July.
Leonardo UK, the Italian-owned defence contractor, has not yet made a public statement regarding the incident. The Edinburgh site is a key hub for the company’s work on international defence programmes, including components for the Eurofighter Typhoon and advanced radar systems used by NATO forces.
The incident marks the latest in a series of direct action protests targeting defence-related facilities in the UK.
Putin’s useless idiots or Hamas’s useless idiots?
Actually could be both, the sentiment is pro Hamas but the funding comes from Russia or Iran
Great news!
#Day36
I’m sad they have been accorded terrorism charges.
These people are just criminal idiots.
Criminal damage – yes
Damage to protected premises space – yes
Harassment of staff – likely to cause alarm/fear – yes
Using vehicle as a weapon – yes
Plenty to charge with and I hope they get long sentences as a deterrent to others.
The use of criminal damage to facilitate political change is the basis of terrorism.
I tend to disagree. We may consider them to be ‘useful idiots’ , but they do not, they consider this direct action as fully justified. They are accordingly useful to malign governments and groups, and subsequently these should be considered terrorist influenced incidents . The perpetrators should be charged as such- for ,if not ,at some point surely they will just escalate their actions.
If your a useful idiot influenced by terrorists to commit acts of violence then your a terrorist. That is a pretty straight forward definition of terrorism.
The quicker these people stop thinking they are on some moral crusade and start realising they are terrorist the safer we will all be.
I believe white middle class women in activist groups have a hard time in viewing themselves as terrorists. Unfortunately many of these women will end up destroying their lives to realise it’s not just young men of Asian decent that are terrorists.
Sorry Jim , I meant that reply to SB not you. I agree , at some point these so-called criminal acts will be motivated (or funded) by a terrorist doctrine, and its better to have no ambiguity on how those acts will be viewed legally.
Where’s your evidence of communication with terrorists? Or evidence of the obviously massive amount of foreign funds it requires to rent vans and buy paint?
So far nothing to suggest these are anything more than protestors.
I half agree.
Stiff sentences and strong enforcement do work – Extinction Rebellion started with “we will get arrested and clog up the system”, but when strong jail sentences were imposed when attacks became serious disruption to the basics – eg Jubilee Bridge, M25 etc – and Roger Hallam their founder got 5 years, they closed down.
I have a huge respect for social change protest – for example Quakers were significant in stopping the slave trade – but for decades we have tolerated invasions of defence sites etc, and it has become “OK”.
It is not OK, or maybe no longer OK, and this needs to be put back into our society as a basic value.
I believe terrorism charges are justified to reflect the nature and intent of what they did.
Terrorism, by legal definition (Terrorism Act 2000), isn’t limited to headline-grabbing attacks with casualties. It includes the use or threat of serious violence or disruption intended to influence the government or intimidate the public, for a political, religious, or ideological cause. That’s exactly what this was.
These women didn’t just damage property or harass staff — they deliberately targeted a high-profile, sensitive site with the intent to cause disruption in pursuit of a broader ideological goal.
So, I believe charging this as terrorism isn’t an overreach. It’s about acknowledging that political violence — even when dressed up as activism — is dangerous and corrosive. If we’re selective about who is held accountable under terrorism laws, we risk creating a double standard where the offender’s ideology determines how seriously we treat the threat.
If their actions had been committed by Muslim men, few would hesitate to call it terrorism. The law should apply equally.
When the anti terrorism law came in Jack Straw expressly stated that disruptive protests, eco activists breaking into and damaging labs was a given example, would not be charged with terrorism.
From the start it was stated that terrorism had to cause actual terror, otherwise everything and anything could be considered terrorism.
I understand your point, but I think it’s important to separate political assurances made during the introduction of legislation from the actual content and interpretation of the law as it stands.
Jack Straw may have given reassurances at the time about the law’s intent, but those statements aren’t binding legal definitions — they’re political commentary. What matters is how the Terrorism Act 2000 is written and how it has been interpreted and applied in practice.
Under Section 1 of the Act, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of serious violence, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to an electronic system — if done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause, and intended to influence the government or intimidate the public.
This doesn’t require “causing terror” in the emotional sense — it’s about the intent and impact of the act, not just whether people feel frightened. That’s why actions like cyberattacks, infrastructure sabotage, or targeted political disruption can be prosecuted as terrorism, even if no one is physically harmed.
But here’s the thing: “serious” doesn’t mean catastrophic. Courts have interpreted “serious damage” contextually — it includes not only the monetary value of damage, but also where the damage occurred, the intent behind it, and the potential wider consequences.
In this case, the women deliberately targeted a high-security or politically sensitive site, not just random property. That elevates the seriousness. If you breach security to disrupt something symbolically or strategically important, the location and purpose amplify the impact — it’s not just trespass or vandalism; it’s political disruption with national attention.
Also, under the law, intent matters as much as outcome. If the aim is to intimidate the public or influence government policy through targeted disruption — even if the actual damage is moderate — that can still meet the terrorism threshold.
The CPS wouldn’t bring terrorism charges lightly. They’d assess whether there was:
• a political or ideological motive,
• intent to influence or intimidate, and
• an act or threat of serious disruption or damage.
It’s also worth noting that the Terrorism Act 2000 has been amended since its introduction, mainly through updates to proscribed organisations and related provisions, reflecting evolving security challenges. While the core definition of terrorism remains, these updates demonstrate that the law adapts to changing threats and continues to be applied with consideration to current contexts.
If we decide, based on the identity or cause of the perpetrators, to downgrade the seriousness of these actions, we’re essentially introducing a subjective filter into law enforcement. That’s dangerous. The law should be neutral on ideology.
So, while Jack Straw may have offered political reassurances to avoid controversy when the law passed, the text and consistent interpretation of the law support the view that deliberately targeting critical infrastructure or sensitive sites for political ends — even under the banner of protest — can fall under terrorism statutes.
This isn’t about calling every protest “terrorism.” It’s about recognizing when the method crosses a line into deliberate, ideologically-driven sabotage or disruption, especially against high-profile targets. That’s when terrorism laws become relevant.
It’s also important to note that the three women have not been charged with a terrorism offence per se, such as engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts or membership of a proscribed organisation.
Instead, they face charges for ordinary criminal offences:
• Malicious mischief
• Dangerous driving (in one case)
These charges are aggravated by a terrorist connection.
A terrorist aggravation does not convert the underlying offence into a “core” terrorism offence under UK law.
However, it allows prosecutors to argue that the alleged conduct was politically, ideologically, or religiously motivated, which can lead to enhanced sentencing and a more serious classification of the offence within the judicial process.
Very good commentary.
women drivers 🙂
Good, give them 10 years each…
If they care about Gaza so much, send them there, no passports etc. Bye Bye.
Have the ones who attacked the Brize Norton tankers been charged?.
Yes – they’ve been charged with:
• Conspiracy to commit criminal damage
• Conspiracy to enter a prohibited place
They haven’t been directly charged under the Terrorism Act, but the CPS and Counter Terrorism Policing have stated that the charges are being treated as having a terrorist connection, due to the ideological motive and the targeting of military infrastructure.
They’ve been remanded back into custody, with a provisional trial set for January 2027 👍
How many weeks will they get in prison? not long,
They’ve already spent weeks in custody, with their trial scheduled for January 2027. However, 18 months of pre-trial detention is considered a lengthy period, so a review of the trial date is planned for January 2026.
These are serious offences—deliberate damage to military property at an active Royal Air Force base—and £7 million is clearly a substantial sum.
So, you can replace weeks with years.
Just to add, in case anyone is wondering why they’ve gone down the conspiracy route after the offences occurred:
Conspiracy in law means an agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal offence. It is not necessary for the crime to be successfully completed; the offence lies in the agreement to carry out the illegal act, along with some step toward making it happen.
Even when the criminal act itself has been committed, prosecutors often charge conspiracy because it allows them to cover everyone involved—not just those who physically carried out the act but also the planners, coordinators, and anyone who assisted or encouraged it.
Charging conspiracy also captures the broader planning and intent behind the crime. Sometimes, it can be easier to prove that a group planned and agreed to commit the offence than to prove who exactly caused specific damage, especially in coordinated group actions.
In this case, the charge of conspiracy to commit criminal damage and conspiracy to enter a prohibited place reflects the fact that the individuals planned and agreed to carry out the break-in and damage in advance. This ensures that the entire coordinated effort is held accountable, not only for the moment the damage occurred. It can also allow for potentially harsher penalties because conspiracy shows premeditation and collective intent.
Thanks
👍
These groups will keep popping up until such time as the British government starts treating the death of civilians in Gaza with the same seriousness as Ukraine.
So we should do what Palestine action wants to prevent more violence?
Sounds like terrorism to me
Disagree, there is a pretty clear line between the right to protest, which is a legal right, and committing terrorist acts, which clearly is not.
But charging protesters with ‘terrorism’ for ramming a gate in their van is way over the top. Criminal damage yes, dangerous driving yes, but hardly terrorism.
We have to be careful on this slippery slope. The police and courts dealt well enough with the hundreds of Greenham Common protesters, who frequently broke through the perimeter fence and caused damage, without needing to label them as terrorists.
There is much public concern about Israel’s heavy-handed actions in Gaza and the West Bank, with charges of war crimes and humanitarian crimes. Labelling those who.feel the need to protest as terrorists skates on pretty thin legal ice.
We are not obliged to follow the USA’s ardent, unquestionning support for everything Israel and Netanyahu.
Vandalism is not “peaceful protest” and needs to be dealt with.
In the Brize Norton case, there are no links with Israel/Gaza
The slippery slope is anyone/anything is fair game to being attacked by an angry mob
just because someone thinks the person/company supports or has links to Israel.
No. Law and order must be upheld.
Nope. It’s a fair critique of the current situation. The public in general are not satisfied with the governments response to Israeli behaviour in Gaza.
Some people are unhappy but they tend to be the type of racist loons that like Corbyn and multiculturism.
It might be best to charge people like these for conspiracy to aid genocide if we can do it.
That is what criticising Israel for defending itself really is
So you think that if the government started boycotting and sanctioning Israel these groups would go away? Think again.
It would simply encourage them.
You have to look deeper at the ideology/motivation behind these “protest” groups.
Many of them, such as “Stop the war Coalition” are fronts for extreme leftists and Islamists.
The real ai
I think all the time, you should try it. As for these extremist elements, it’s a matter of historical record that such groups are reactionary in nature. In this case to events in Israel. So you pressure Israel to behave. The events stop and so does most of the reaction to those events. It’s not revolutionary thinking.
It is naive and Idealistic thinking :
“So you pressure Israel to behave. The events stop and so does most of the reaction to those events”
The UK could not pressure Israel to stop even if it wanted to.
At the core/organisation of these pressure groups are extreme leftists, anarchists and radical Islamists, a coalition of malcontents that wants to bring down Western society.
The destruction of Israel is a common political cause amongst these groups. Somehow, they think that would make the world better.
It’s a difficult one for the UK and our allies.
We also have to manage our USA relationship, and that is now controlled by a President and his backers who are well down the road of destroying the USA as a constitutional democracy. And said USA government is seeking to undermine the Rule of Law domestically and internationally – which is why Trump’s Government has personally sanctioned people who simply work for the International Criminal Court starting with the “IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT” on February 6 2025.
On the other hand the Netanyahu’s Government’s behaviour amply meets the definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention of 1948, and invites comparisons with Warsaw in WW2 or the Mongol destruction of cities in the Middle East. There are multiple other war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In addition to having the Israeli Army gunning down children and other civilians at food distribution points and staging deliberate massacres such as the murder of a column of ambulance drivers, they are now deliberately demolishing entire areas of Gaza. That is blatant ethnic cleansing.
And that description is understated.
The BBC has a lot to answer for. There is more airtime given to the war with Hamas in Gaza than on the war in Ukraine (I’m not talking about Trump did this or that, but the effect on civilians). Other wars like Sudan or Myanmar are only reported once a flood. So why do we hear so much news about what’s going on in Gaza, and so few reports from Ukraine in comparison. Britain ois heavily involved in Ukraine and not so much in Gaza or Sudan. Why do flagship BBC news programmes only tell us what’s going in in Syria when Israel is involved, but almost never mentions the Turkish involvement which is more important.
I heard two reports in half an hour this morning about the Israel and the Palestinians on Radio 4. Sure it’s news and it should be covered, but all the other wars are news too. The UK is paying billions a year to support Ukraine. Yet it’s the BBC’s relentless story of Israel killing civilians with occasional token responses that you don’t get paralleled in the coverage of any other war. Please don’t say that’s because it doesn’t happen in Ukraine anymore and Putin’s a nice guy now, or that Syrians and Sudanese run their wars according to international law.
In principle I agree, but we are remonstrating with Israel over their genocide of Gazans. I support the rights of both Israel & Palestinians. I condemn the atrocities of both Israelis & Palestinians. Israel should remember that conducting operations that are on the same level of the Nazi liquidation of the 1944 Warsaw ghetto, reduces them to the same level. Both Hamas & Netenyahu must be held to account.
Good- alongside the 98 protestors arrested nationally who openly supported Palestine Action- a proscribed terrorist group and a further group of 24 a week ago.
The penalty should be really clear- penalty of jail time, curfew and wearing a tag + having a criminal record for terrorism supporting actions- that’s if you are a British citizen with the right to remain, anyone else- deport to country of origin with clear instructions you return you get arrested, charged and sent back again. For many of these individuals removing their right to remain in our free and democratic society is the biggest penalty they can face.
“One man’s Nelson Mandela is another mans Nelson Mandela”.
Indeed ,and he was only a driver- a glorified Deliveroo employee if you will, and at least he was freed…in the end.
People tend to see or understand only one side of the story and few are ever persuaded otherwise.
“Lines in the sand”.
The law in this democratic country does not base its deliberations on citizens’ political ideals but solely their actions. Whether people are extreme leftists or extreme rightists, anarchists or fascists, etc is a matter for the individual, it matters not a jot in the eyes of the law. If they break the law, that is a different matter amd there is a whole range of charges and tariffs in place to punish those that do.
Describing those who find Israel’s actions in Palestine as unconscionable as ‘extreme leftists, anarchists, radical Islamists and a coalition of malcontents that wants to bring down Western society’ is just over-the-top tabloid/Reform/far right proselytising that has sweet FA to do with either the law or terrorism.
We know what terrorism is and what terrorist acts are, we’ve seen enough of them with the IRA, ISIS, etc over the years. People protesting Israel’s actions do not fit that mould, they are entitled to protest – and to be charged and imprisoned if in doing so they break the law.
You then lump them together as wanting the ‘destruction of Israel’, which is the kind of claim we hear from Israel’s far right and settler gang. I think what the informed public wants to see is Israel abandoning its illegal occupation and settlement of the West Bank,, unacceptable war crimes in Gaza and an end to its expansionist, land-grab aspirations in neighbouring territories. Basically, to start behaving as a law-abiding democracy, rather than a theocratic and racist loose cannon.
Sorry, but law-abiding people do not destroy or vandalise property just because they are angry at events happening in a foreign country.
The UK did not start the war in Gaza and certainly won’t stop it regardless.
Re: “Describing those who find Israel’s actions in Palestine as unconscionable …..”
I am describing the “activist” groups/organisations and their political motives here ….go do your research, you will soon see who founded/funded, and supports them.
But describing people who are concerned with these criminal acts of vandalism and disturbance of the peace by miltant activsim as right-wing is OK?
Re: “Basically, to start behaving as a law-abiding democracy, rather than a theocratic and racist loose cannon.”
Go and tell that to Hamas / Hezzbollah / Iran.
Why would Israel unilaterally abandon its occupation of the West Bank? Do you think that would lead to peace? Israel unilaterally abandonded its occupation of the Gaza over twenty years ago and that didn’t stop Hamas and the Gazans from attacking Israel, and defending from a dense, fortified tunnel system, extending many hundreds of miles. Hamas have been planning this war ever since they defeated Fatah. They took and keep hostages to continually provoke an Israeli response, and to make people like you anti-Israel. They know it’s politically impossible for any Israeli government to stop until the hostage situation is resolved, and boy do they have a willing participant in this Netanyahu government. Palestinians are the definition of biting the hand that feeds them. Remember Black September? There’s not a country in the area they haven’t attacked over the last 75 years, countries that reached out to help, so why are we surprised they attack us here?
Don’t just call for Israel to give up. Call for Hamas to give up. They didn’t start this war because they were oppressed, but because it suits their ideology of hatred and victimhood.
When Cripes suggest that the “Destruction of Israel” is a claim we hear from Israel’s far right and settler gang, I have two comments to make. First I agree that the settlement of the West Bank should be stopped – it’s a stupid provocation and totally un-necessary. However, the “Destruction of Israel” comes not initially from the far right in Israel, it comes from the Ayatollah’s in Iran who have re-iterated many times they will not stop until they have wiped Israel and every Israeli from the face of the planet. This has been parroted many times since 1948 and it isn’t going to stop just because someone drives a van through a security fence, or displays a Palestinian flag at an opera house or our foreign minister shouts and stamps his feet in parliament. Hamas, the Houtis, Hezbollah, in fact most of the Arab states around Israel pay homage to the Ayatollah to a lesser or greater extant and the Ayatollah sits back, watches from a safe distance, and funds them. The problem is that most of the Palestinians are peace loving people and just want to live out their lives without all this hassle, except they have to live under an Ayatollah sponsored Hamas government. And while Hamas is being kept busy at the moment, Iran is quietly re-arming the Houti’s.