Source: Anticapitalist Meetup
In May 2026, 4 British people – Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Zainab Rajwani – 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.
They were convicted of criminal damage in May 2026. On Friday 12 June, 2026, Justice Johnson ruled that these 4 people convicted of criminal damage had a “terrorist connection” to their offending and used this to determine their sentencing.
From The Guardian:
“A judge has imposed lengthy custodial sentences on four Palestine Action activists who smashed up drones and other equipment at an Israeli arms manufacturer’s UK factory after ruling that there was a “terrorist connection” to their offending.
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.
A report relied on by the prosecution at Friday’s sentencing hearing said the raid on the factory had caused £1.2m of damage, including to 41 military assets. The report referred to £395,056 of damage to six units in an unnamed drone system as well as damage to other unmanned aerial vehicles.”
What didn’t the judge say or let be said …
In 2025 (after the direct action for which they are charged), Palestine Action was proscribed as a “terrorist group” by then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper; before then, membership in Palestine Action was not proscribed. As I wrote in February, on February 13, 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 it at a 5 member Appeals Court on the 28 April 2026. The decision by the Appeals Court is expected to take place on 15 June.
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 “I oppose genocide! I support Palestine Actions” calling for the proscription of Palestine Actions to be removed.
If the government’s appeal fails and Palestine Action cannot be called a terrorist organisation, several things happen:
- being a member, supporter or sympathiser of Palestine Action is no longer illegal;
- 2,000 people will not have to face trial and conviction; and
- the UK government attack on the Palestine Solidarity movement as a whole and direct action as a tactic, can be pushed back.
I honestly have no idea whether if the Palestine Action terrorism proscription is overturned, if this will impact on the sentencing in the Filton 4 case.
Despite not being convicted of terrorism charges (and this includes 1 previous trial and the retrial 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 “criminal damage”); 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.
This trial was a test case for several things:
- the power of government over people’s Human Rights guarantees;
- on the extension of terrorism charges to private property; and
- it clearly was a challenge to and will have a significant impact on human rights in the UK
During the trial, the judge, Justice Johnson forbade the defendants 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.
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 (in which moral justification and juror’s 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.
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:
“Mr Justice Johnson told the four they had participated in a “carefully planned and highly sophisticated attack”, adding: “The fact that you were trying to shut down a company that you thought was acting unlawfully does not reduce the seriousness of the offence.”
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 12 May 2026.
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? Moreover, since Juries have the right to convict or not convict, isn’t it essential that they know everything that is available to make a decision?
Jury Equity
Why is Jury Equity (also known as Jury Nullification or Conscientious Acquittal) such a problem for the government, their prosecutors, and judges?
Let’s think of something that doesn’t look political, but actually is. If someone is starving and they steal food from someone who is wealthy, wouldn’t 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?
Jury Equity has been (and remains) extremely effective for climate activists; we can see examples of acquittals for Extinction Rebellion and other climate activists. If something beyond what is permitted as evidence (“the facts”) 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’t respect private property (yes, a grievous sin in capitalism). As advocated in David McDermott-Hughes in the Boston Review:
“What if protestors—while breaking the law and going to trial—looked 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.”
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). If guilt or innocence are the purview of a jury, then shouldn’t all knowledge be given to the jury to make its decision? For those of a legal background, here is the Appeals Court decision around Jury Equity specifically in relation to Trudi Warner (one of the founders of Defend our Juries).
The dangers of this decision and sentencing?
There are a number of things to be concerned about these decisions by the judge and the sentencing of the Filton 4.
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).
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 “fair trial, verdict and sentencing”?
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 when 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?
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?!
From Cage NGO discussing the Filton 6 case in May 2026:
“What that infrastructure looked like in practice was six people on trial, unable to speak the truth of why they were there, while a jury was asked to deliver a verdict on events it was deliberately prevented from understanding. They were not told about the genocide those weapons were destined to serve, and rather focus was only given on the damage that was done. They were not told about Elbit’s role as the primary supplier of Israel’s military technology, battle-tested on Palestinian civilians. They were not told that the defendants had spent years exhausting every legal and democratic avenue before walking through those gates. And they were not told, crucially, that a guilty verdict would expose the defendants to terrorism sentencing, despite no terrorism charges ever being brought. The jury decided four were guilty of criminal damage. What they did not know was that they were potentially deciding a terrorism case.
The state is stress-testing new machinery, of legislation introduced in 2021 that allows a terrorism connection to be added to any offence carrying a two-year minimum sentence, without a terrorism charge, without the jury’s knowledge, and at the sole discretion of the judge. The Filton four are the first people in British legal history to face this mechanism for direct action. If it stands, it will be used again in similar cases. If this stands, the defendants could be given significantly longer prison sentences, and face severe restrictions on their lives following their release.“
I will end with a comment from Amnesty International:
“The use of terrorism laws against direct action protesters must end.”
In response to Judge Mr Justice Johnson’s announcement to the Court that he would be sentencing the Palestine Action ‘Filton 4’ protesters on the basis that their raid of Elbit Systems had a “terrorist connection”, Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty International UK’s Chief Executive, said:
“The defendants in today’s case were sentenced as terrorists because prosecutors want to make an example of them and set a precedent for how direct action protesters could be treated in the future.
“Criminal damage has never been treated as terrorism within the UK justice system before and it is dangerous to treat them as the same thing. We should all be worried about what this means for other individuals taking direct action in protest of a genocide or any other issue.
“The right to protest is one of the most effective tools we have to hold our leaders to account and today is another step in the ongoing crackdown in this country against it.
“It is completely disproportionate to punish protesters for criminal damage as if they were terrorists, a sentence that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
Update:
The UK government appeal against the illegality of the proscription of Palestine Action has been successful Needless to say this decision will have ramifications way beyond that of proscribing Palestine Action because any government will be able to use the threat of proscription to destroy movements against their policies.
Think about the empowerment of an authoritarian political party like Reform UK (probably our next leaders) and their ability to attack anti-racist groups. The fact that the Tories (and of course this has been maintained by the Labour government) enabled police decision-making about letting protests occur or not; based upon their understanding of what a threat is or not. Democracy and Human Rights have been attacked and the judiciary has failed to reign in the government.
This will impact freedom of speech, assembly and protest. It will impact the use of direct action by environmentalist organisations, anti-racist organisations , women’s organisations (they would probably outlaw the Suffragettes today), disabled people’s movements (who routinely block traffic on major roads) and the LGBTQI+ movement.
The decisions of the ruling class and politicians that serve their interests have been protected once again. This was an incredibly stupid decision. I am wondering how they will deal with the 2000+ arrestees in solidarity against the proscription of Palestine Action. The government has already attempted to move to limiting jury trials, perhaps that was more prescient than we understood at the time