A group of six activists from Palestine Action has been found not guilty of aggravated burglary following an incident at a UK site of an Israeli defense contractor.
The individuals involved—Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, Fatema Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, and Jordan Devlin—faced serious charges after they allegedly broke into Elbit Systems’ factory located in Filton, near Bristol, on August 6, 2024. They were accused of threatening violence and wielding sledgehammers as instruments of intimidation. However, after a thorough trial at Woolwich Crown Court in South London, none of the activists were convicted.
The jury's decision came after extensive deliberation lasting 36 hours and 34 minutes, ultimately acquitting all six of aggravated burglary—a conviction that could have led to a life sentence. Furthermore, jurors cleared Rajwani, Rogers, and Devlin of violent disorder charges.
Despite the acquittals, the jury did not reach a consensus on the charges related to criminal damage, despite all defendants, with the exception of Devlin, acknowledging that they had entered the premises without authorization and had caused damage to Elbit’s equipment, which included computers and drones. Additionally, there was no verdict regarding the claim that Corner, aged 23, had caused grievous bodily harm to police sergeant Kate Evans, nor on the violent disorder charges against Head, Corner, and Kamio.
Prior to the announcement of the verdicts, Mr. Justice Johnson informed the jurors that he would not ask them to continue deliberating, as it seemed they had exhausted their ability to reach further conclusions.
As the verdict was read, the activists embraced each other in the dock, while dozens of their supporters cheered from the public gallery.
During the prosecution, Deanna Heer KC contended that the defendants were armed with sledgehammers, which she argued were intended not only for property damage but also as potential weapons against individuals. She described a scene where security personnel were verbally abused, threatened with the sledgehammers, and even sprayed with a foam fire extinguisher.
In defense of the activists, Rajiv Menon KC emphasized that any violent actions taken by the defendants were spontaneous rather than premeditated. He argued that the defendants had not anticipated the presence of security guards at the factory and were overwhelmed by the situation. Menon drew a parallel between Head’s actions and those of the suffragettes, while denouncing Elbit Systems as a company significantly involved in the deaths of countless Palestinians.
The defense also suggested that the security team had responded with excessive force during the incident and highlighted the absence of crucial CCTV footage.
An interesting moment arose during the trial when one juror inquired whether a belief that the destruction of weapons intended for civilian harm could be considered a lawful excuse. Johnson clarified that it would not, yet Menon reminded jurors of their right to acquit.
Both Heer and Johnson instructed the jurors to refrain from allowing their personal views on the Middle Eastern conflict to influence their verdicts.
Following the ruling, Clare, the mother of Zoe Rogers, expressed her thoughts, stating: "Our loved one’s action against Elbit Systems and the state’s brutal response have exposed the true values of the government. The government is determined to do business with Israel and protect its weapons industry at any cost.
"Our loved ones dared to provoke this beast – and no expense has been spared in policing, prosecuting, and imprisoning them without trial. Imagine if the government had dedicated the same resources and political commitment to preventing genocide."
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, a group that has organized protests against the ban imposed on Palestine Action last year, remarked that the verdicts represented a significant setback for government ministers who attempted to classify Palestine Action as a violent organization to justify its prohibition under poorly constructed anti-terrorism laws. Amnesty International echoed this sentiment, asserting that the ruling underscored the disproportionate nature of the proscription decision.
