In May 2026, 4 British people \u2013 Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Zainab Rajwani \u2013 faced a retrial over a direct action against Elbit Industries UK in August 2024 where they went into the Israeli weapons manufacturer and destroyed drones and machinery used to make weapons. <\/p>\n
They were convicted of criminal damage in May 2026. \u00a0On Friday the 12th of June, 2026, Justice Johnson sentenced these 4 people convicted of criminal damage for a direct action at an Israeli weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems UK, in 2024 said there was a \u201cterrorist connection\u201d to their offending and used this to determine their sentencing.<\/p>\n
From The Guardian:<\/p>\n
\u201cA judge has imposed lengthy custodial sentences on four\u00a0Palestine Action<\/a>\u00a0activists who smashed up drones and other equipment at an Israeli arms manufacturer\u2019s UK factory after ruling that there was a \u201cterrorist connection\u201d to their offending.<\/p>\n Charlotte Head, 30, and Leona Kamio, 30, were each jailed for five years and Fatema Rajwani, 21, was sentenced to four years and 8 months for criminal damage in relation to a 2024 break-in at the Elbit Systems UK site in Gloucestershire. Samuel Corner, 23, who was additionally convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent for striking Sgt Kate Evans with a sledgehammer, was sentenced to seven years and eight months. Each will also spend an additional year on licence and be subject to 15 years of terrorist notification requirements.<\/p>\n A report relied on by the prosecution at Friday\u2019s sentencing hearing said the raid on the factory had caused \u00a31.2m of damage, including to 41 military assets. The report referred to \u00a3395,056 of damage to six units in an unnamed drone system as well as damage to other unmanned aerial vehicles.\u201d<\/p>\n But what didn\u2019t the judge say or let be said \u2026<\/p>\n In 2025 (after the direct action for which they are charged), Palestine Action was proscribed<\/a> as a \u201cterrorist group\u201d by then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper; before then, membership in Palestine Action was not proscribed. As I wrote in February<\/a>, On February 13th, 2026 the proscription order against Palestine Action was declared illegal in a Judicial Opinion as this was viewed as disproportionate compared to the actions of Palestine Action and a violation of the Human Rights of not only those that did direct actions, but members of Palestine Action, as well as supporters and sympathisers. The government has appealed the decision and defended<\/a> it at a 5 member Appeals Court on the 28th of April 2026. The decision by the Appeals Court is expected to take place tomorrow the 15th of June.<\/p>\n This decision of the Appeals Court is incredibly important; at least 2,000 people have protested in solidarity with members of Palestine Action and their right to do direct action. These people have been arrested and are facing conviction for being supporters of a terrorist organisation (which has only done direct action). They have held up signs saying \u201cI oppose genocide! I support Palestine Actions\u201d calling for the proscription of Palestine Actions to be removed. <\/p>\n If the government\u2019s appeal fails and Palestine Action cannot be called a terrorist organisation, several things happen:<\/p>\n Despite not being convicted of terrorism charges (and this includes 1 previous trial and the retrial<\/a> against them and other members of Palestine Action, as well as the charge for which the 4 (5 if the 5th defendant in the case Lewie who was also charged in the Brize Norton case and was on bail release) were convicted \u201ccriminal damage\u201d); the charge of terrorism was added to the sentencing retrospectively; that is after the conviction for criminal damage. This, in and of itself, extends the length of jail time and the Filton 4 will be branded as terrorists for 15 years. \u00a0<\/p>\n This trial was a test case for several things: <\/p>\n the power of government over people\u2019s Human Rights guarantees; <\/p>\n on the extension of terrorism charges to private property; and<\/p>\n it clearly was a challenge to and will have a significant impact on human rights in the UK <\/p>\n During the trial, the judge, Justice Johnson forbade the defendants<\/a> from telling the Jury why this direct action had occurred (to destroy weapons that would be used in an ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza). There was also a media blackout on the trial until May when the convictions were determined.<\/p>\n The Judge (someone the government could count on and was brought in to replace the original Judge who had the nerve to grant bail to one of the defendants) did not inform the Jury that there was a potential terrorism link on any conviction. In his closing speech, the leading defence barrister who is highly respected, Rajiv Menon (KC), raised the issue of Jury Equity<\/a> (in which moral justification and juror\u2019s convictions, i.e., their beliefs) can be used by members of the Jury to not convict a defendant(s) despite their being guilty of the crime they are accused of; this has. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n This had been ruled out of order by Justice Jackson as not a lawful excuse for action in his directions to the Jury; from The Guardian specifically the Judge said the following<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cMr Justice Johnson told the four they had participated in a \u201ccarefully planned and highly sophisticated attack\u201d, adding: \u201cThe fact that you were trying to shut down a company that you thought was acting unlawfully does not reduce the seriousness of the offence.\u201d<\/p>\n The lead barrister, Rajiv Menon then faced an unprecedented contempt of court charge as Judge Johnson argued that he was telling the jury to disregard his directions and filed contempt charges. Menon argued that he was attempting to defend his client to the best of his ability The contempt charge against Menon was subsequently thrown out by the Appeals Court on 12th of May 2026. \u00a0<\/p>\n Quite honestly, if making it harder to commit genocide by destroying drones and military hardware does not deserve to be told to a jury as mitigating circumstances or as relevant to the defence, what is a relevant piece of information to be shared as instructions to jury? What conclusions could be drawn about their actions? If the state needs to keep the reasons why someone did something as a secret in order to secure a conviction, then can it be said that they jury knew all the information that is relevant to its role? \u00a0Moreover, since Juries have the right to convict or not convict, isn\u2019t it essential that they know everything that is available to make a decision?<\/p>\n Jury Equity<\/p>\n Why is Jury Equity<\/a> (also known as \u00a0Jury Nullification<\/a> or Conscientious Acquittal<\/a>) such a problem for the government, their prosecutors, and Judges? <\/p>\n Let\u2019s think of something that doesn\u2019t look political, but actually is. If someone is starving and they steal food from someone who is wealthy, wouldn\u2019t the reasons for stealing food be relevant if they are arrested and put on trial? Even Aquinas argued that natural law must ensure subsistence of the population. So what would natural justice be in this circumstances?<\/p>\n Jury Equity has been (and remains) extremely effective for climate activists; we can see examples of acquittals<\/a> for Extinction Rebellion and other climate activists. If something beyond what is permitted as evidence (\u201cthe facts\u201d) in a court of law as presented in discussion of a crime; yes, the person broke in and damaged property, but the reason that they did so is not discussed so it simply looks as though it is capricious or these people won\u2019t respect private property (yes, a grievous sin in capitalism). As advocated in David McDermott-Hughes in the Boston Review<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat if protestors\u2014while breaking the law and going to trial\u2014looked across the room for support: to the jury? This oldest of democratic institutions wields the unchecked power to acquit, to set aside and unmake laws, and to ultimately render oil routes unprotectable. Juries have the power to sow anarchy far and wide. To be sure, the risks of this mode of activism are high and success is uncertain. The strategy known as jury nullification should be one of last resort. Unfortunately, the climate movement is running out of better options.\u201d<\/p>\n Imagine being able to use the jury system to ensure independence of juries which are guaranteed in law? That is, non-conviction of people as the reasons for their actions are taken into consideration, (e.g., environmental destruction, opposition to genocide, opposition to government policy). \u00a0If guilt or innocence are the purview of a jury, then shouldn\u2019t all knowledge be given to the jury to make its decision? For those of a legal background, here is the Appeals Court decision<\/a> around Jury Equity specifically in relation to Trudi Warner<\/a> (one of the founders of Defend our Juries).<\/p>\n What are the dangers of this decision and sentencing?<\/p>\n There are a number of things to be concerned about these decisions by the Judge and the sentencing of the Filton 4.<\/p>\n The first is the redefinition of terrorism to include criminal damage of property. This is completely new and adversely affects people doing direct action. There was never a plan to hurt people or to threaten them. In the case of gross bodily harm, it was recognised that it was done with no intent (the person was not planning to do this in advance).<\/p>\n Secondly, think about it, you are charged with 1 crime and then sentenced for a crime (terrorism) which juries had refused to convict you of doing, can this be called a \u201cfair trial, verdict and sentencing\u201d?<\/p>\n What is to stop the state from doing this in all cases of direct action or cases with political content that actually threatens it foreign spending, its policies with respect to the destruction of the planet? What about if the state is doing something at the behest of a foreign power (the US, Israel), the defence industry and arms trade, the fossil fuel industry, an anti-abortionist religious institution?<\/p>\n Third, the fact that you may be charged with a crime for protesting, using freedom of assembly and freedom of speech by an increasingly authoritarian state destroys basic democratic civil and human rights. The reality is that is the reason why they are actually doing this; they want to eliminate our civil and human rights. The fact that a judge can hide the real reason for your being on trial is yet another step into authoritarianism. Will we be charged and not even told what we have supposedly done next?!<\/p>\n