the crux is they were tried and convicted on simple charges of criminal damage and gbh without intent. these offences took place before PA were proscibed.

the judge after making prejudicial remarks throughout the case and even wanted to prosecute one of the defence lawyers for explaining to the jury that they could acquit based on conscience then made the decision to sentence based on terrorist offences, when the defendants had nof been found guilty of terrorist offences.

the legal fraternity are up in arms about this. basically this was a show trial. i suspect civil rights lawyer Starmer has a hand in this travesty.