Wikipedia

2024 Filton Elbit Systems break-in

(Redirected from 2024 Elbit Systems burglary)

The 2024 Filton Elbit Systems break-in was a high-profile direct action carried out by members of the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action on 6 August 2024 at the Elbit Systems UK facility at the Aztec West Business Park in Filton, near Bristol, England.[1][2][3] The site was a research, development and manufacturing hub for Elbit, an Israeli arms company. The activists drove a repurposed prison van into the compound, breached security fences, entered the facility and caused substantial damage to property and equipment; the action also involved confrontations with security personnel and police.[4] Several activists were arrested and later charged with aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder. One defendant was additionally charged with grievous bodily harm (GBH) for allegedly striking a police officer with a sledgehammer. The break-in sparked national debate about protest tactics, the use of anti-terror laws, and the role of arms manufacturing in British domestic and foreign policy. All defendants were found not guilty of aggravated burglary after the first trial; the violent disorder charges were dropped. However a retrial led to four convictions for criminal damage, an acquittal on the initial GBH with intent charge and conviction on majority verdict for a lesser charge of GBH without intent.[5][6]

The charges were secretly subject to a "terrorism enhancement" applied by the judge in a preliminary ruling of March 2025, but not disclosed to the jury and restricted from being reported by the UK media until May 2026. This was applied based on property damage and that "the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons".[7] It means the four people convicted of criminal damage will face more severe sentencing and registration as "terrorists", which will severely restrict their future lives after release.[8]

Background

Palestine Action is an activist network that targets firms associated with the Israeli military, especially companies it says supply weapons used against Palestinians. Prior to August 2024, the group had undertaken smaller-scale protests, blockades, and occupations at Elbit-linked sites. Their strategy emphasises direct action, including sabotage, to disrupt what they view as a "war-machine infrastructure."

Elbit's Filton facility, which is often referred to in reporting as the Horizon site, was opened in July 2023. Elbit had held a separate lease in the Aztec West business park since 2019 for other UK operations, but the specific Horizon/H2 Filton facility that Palestine Action targeted was inaugurated in July 2023.[9]

The facility had been under repeated protest pressure. According to activist supporters, the site manufactured quadcopter drones, among other systems, which they claim are used by the Israeli military in Gaza. The Filton site's existence and operation attracted sustained opposition from Palestine Action.

Break-in

In the early hours of 6 August 2024, a group of Palestine Action activists drove a decommissioned prison van into the perimeter fence of the Elbit Systems site in Filton, using the vehicle effectively as a battering ram to breach the outer security barrier.[10]

After breaking through, the activists entered the facility. Inside, they used tools including sledgehammers, crowbars and fire extinguishers filled with red paint to vandalise equipment, walls, and floors. According to the prosecution at their later trial, they damaged drones, technical systems and other sensitive materials, and sprayed red paint to symbolise "blood."[4] It's estimated over £1 million in damages were caused to the facility.

During the break-in, there was a violent confrontation between the activists and responding security staff and police. Bodycam and CCTV footage shown at trial allegedly depicts one of the activists striking Police Sergeant Kate Evans with a sledgehammer while she was on the ground, causing serious injury. The defendant, a then 23-year-old man, is charged with grievous bodily harm. Other police officers reported being threatened and, in one account, having a hammer swung at them.

Six people were arrested at the site that day, while additional arrests followed in nationwide raids in the days and months afterward.[11] The total number of activists charged in relation to the break-in eventually reached 24, a group widely referred to as the "Filton 24."

Immediately after the break-in, the arrested suspects were detained under the UK Terrorism Act, allowing extended detention without charge. However, the formal charges later brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were not terrorism offences; instead they included aggravated burglary, criminal damage,[12] and violent disorder.[13] Nevertheless, the CPS indicated it would argue the offences had a "terrorist connection," which could be treated as an aggravating factor at sentencing.[14] The judge did indeed rule in March 2025 that the defendants would be charged with that terrorism enhancement, though this information was kept secret from the jury and from the wider public until after some convictions were returned in May 2026.[7][8] For the charge of aggravated burglary to be successful, the prosecution needed to prove the defendants entered the weapons factory with the intent to injure the people inside.[13]

First trial

The first major trial involving a subset of six activists - those accused of entering the factory - was scheduled for November 2025 at Woolwich Crown Court. By the time of the trial, some of the defendants had been held on remand for over a year, exceeding the usual six-month limit for being detained pre-trial without bail.[15] The defendants denied all charges against them.[16] The defence lawyers sought to halt proceedings for alleged abuse of processes making a fair trial impossible, claiming then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had been in contempt of court for authoring an article, published that August in The Observer, "which directly interferes with the court process".[17] The article, which said the charges against the defendants included a "terrorism connection" and intimated "disturbing information" about potential "future attacks", was, according to the lawyers, "dripping in innuendo".[17] Before publication, the CPS warned Cooper the article could unfairly impact the trial.[17] The defence cited other statements from the government they claimed were false and would prejudice the trial. Once such statement, which the judge described as "misleading", was a report in The Times that Home Office officials said Iran could be funding Palestine Action.[17] In a pre-trial ruling, the judge, Justice Johnson, dismissed the defence's application for abuse of process.[17]

For the trial, the judge ruled inadmissible the defendants' defence of "lawful excuse": that they had done what they had done to prevent a great harm - they'd destroyed weapons that would have been used to kill civilians in Gaza.[18]

During proceedings, police released to the press edited prosecution footage from the night of 6 August 2024.[12][13] The court was shown body-worn police footage, CCTV and video taken by activists' own devices including GoPros, capturing the van breach, the interior damage and the confrontations with police and security staff.[4] The defence had to push during the trial for access to unredacted footage and correspondence between the police and Elbit staff.[12] Some footage was missing. Newly-released footage showed Elbit security staff entering the factory with a whip, and at one stage holding a sledgehammer.[12] The footage showed much of the violence was initiated by security staff.[13] During examination, the police admitted Elbit had sole access to the factory CCTV footage for two days; correspondence, in the defence's words, showed the police "chatting with Israel's largest arms manufacturer about what the defence counsel might do" if the footage was edited excessively.[12]

Police accounts changed under cross-examination by the defence. For example, in one attending officer's statement they said they saw one of the defendants holding a sledge hammer, but admitted under examination that it was one of the security staff who actually held it. There were two alleged assaults by the security guard on one of the defendants.[12]

Summing up was expected to be completed on Friday 9 January.[19] The trial ran for 10 weeks.[20] On 4 February, after deliberating for over 36 hours,[2] the jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty' for all six defendants regarding the charge of aggravated burglary. Other charges against these (criminal damage and violent disorder) resulted in no verdicts being returned. Three defendants, Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin, were found not guilty of violent disorder.[21]

The CPS said the people tried would face retrial for the charges on which the jury were unable to reach a verdict.[22]

All the remaining defendants of the so-called Filton 24 were acquitted of aggravated burglary on 18 February after prosecutors were unable to provide evidence to support the charge.[23]

Second trial

Prohibited defence arguments

For the second trial, the judge placed restrictions on the arguments which the defendants were permitted to raise before the jury. They were forbidden from mentioning jury equity (the absolute right of jurors to convict or acquit according to their conscience), or that a judge may not direct a jury to convict.[8] They were also prevented from relying on legal defences including that the defendants' actions were legally justified as they acted out of necessity to save lives, acted to prevent a greater crime, or acted to prevent much greater property damage in Palestine.[8] Furthermore they could not invite the jury to consider Elbit's activities in manufacturing and supplying weapons to Israel, the nature of the property destroyed in the raid on the Elbit facility, their belief that the weapons at the factory would be used to kill or injury others including children, the history of the middle east including since October 7th 2023, and their previous acquittals on charges of aggravated burglary and violent disorder.[8] For the duration of the trial, UK media were forbidden to report on these restrictions.[8]

Towards the end of the second trial, five of the defendants (with the exception of Corner) dismissed counsel and chose to make their closing arguments to the jury themselves. They said their lawyers were unable to represent them due to "decisions made by the court".[24] In her closing remarks, Charlotte Head stated that she pleaded not guilty to damaging property because what was damaged "were weapons" and that she believed she "was legally justified in doing what I did".[24] She stated she had "I signed up [for the action] after months of campaigning and pleading. I can tell you I had no other choice, no other options were available because we tried them all."[24] Zoe Rogers stated that the targeted site held export licences to Israel and had been visited by its ambassador.[24] "The prosecution knows full well that we are right that this factory is supplying weapons to Israel to be used in Gaza," she said, adding, "they are choosing to suppress the truth rather than contest it".[24] She also noted that during the trial, "certain words have been blacklisted, that, until our speeches, the word 'genocide' hasn't been said once".[24]

Verdict

On 5th May 2026 the jury returned verdicts in the retrial at Woolwich Crown Court. Four defendants: Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani were found guilty of criminal damage. Two other defendants: Zoe Rogers, and Jordan Devlin were found not guilty of the same charge.[5][6] On a further charge of GBH with intent, the jury found Samuel Corner not guilty, however he was found guilty (by an 11-to-1 verdict) of the lesser charge of GBH without intent.[5][6]

Head, Corner, Kamio and Rajwani were remanded to prison ahead of their sentencing, set for June. On conviction all defendants had already served at least 18 months in prison, apart from Corner who had served 21 months.[5]

Parallel trial of defence barrister

After the conclusion of the second trial a reporting restriction was lifted and it could be revealed in UK media that the defence barrister was simultaneously in a trial facing contempt of court charges arising from the first trial, for reminding jurors in the first trial of their right to acquit on conscience.[25]

The barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, reportedly told the jury about Bushel's Case of 1670, which established the independence of juries and is commemorated in a plaque at the Old Bailey. The trial judge in the first case filed a complaint on that trial's conclusion in February and the case proceeded at the Royal Courts of Justice for eight weeks, well attended by media but unreported before his clients' case at Woolwich was completed.[26]

According to legal figures, the action against Rajiv Menon is unprecedented in living memory. Veteran Human rights barrister Michael Mansfield KC stated, "I'm extremely concerned about the issues that are at the centre of this initiative which has never been done before as far as I'm aware, particularly the chilling effect upon the critical concept of a fiercely independent bar, fearless in its pursuit of justice on behalf of those it represents".[26] Paul Heron, a solicitor with the Public Interest Law Centre said, "Barristers must be free to advance their clients' cases without fear that politically contentious arguments will expose them personally to sanction." More widely he warned of the risk to fair trials that the move represents: "Courts should protect independent advocacy, not create a chilling effect around politically sensitive defences".[26]

On 12th May 2026 Menon's legal team won an appeal against the charges, in which they had argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to handle the case against him without an intervention from the attorney general. The Court of Appeal agreed, "finding that Justice Johnson wrongly initiated proceedings and should have either dealt with the issue himself at the time or referred the matter to the attorney general."[27]

With the conclusion of the appeal, numerous reporting restrictions around the case were lifted and UK media could for the first time report on the "terrorism enhancement" that would be applied to sentencing unbeknownst to the jury, and the various lines of argument and evidence that the defence had been prevented from using.[8]

Secret terrorism enhancement

During the second trial, on 14th April 2026 the MP for Coventry Zarah Sultana used parliamentary privilege to raise concerns in the House of Commons over the conduct of the trial and specific decisions made by the judge. She stated, "Six Palestine Action activists face retrial after being acquitted in February following a year in prison. If convicted, they and 18 others will be sentenced as terrorists, but the jury will not be told that. The jury could convict them on criminal damage charges with no idea that terrorism sentences will follow. Not a single terrorism charge has been brought forward. The proscription has been ruled unlawful, and the defendants themselves have been banned from telling the jury that they acted to stop genocide under threat of contempt charges".[28] The next week it was noted that no "British media outlet can safely report or play the contents of what she said"[29] but that in general legislative terms, changes under the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 meant that "if a defendant is found guilty of the base charge – and it's also decided that the terror connection exists – [they could] receive a longer sentence, they’d be ineligible for early release, and be registered as terror offenders".[29]

After the conclusion of the contempt case against Rajiv Menon, on 12th May 2026 UK reporting restrictions covering this enhancement were lifted. It was then revealed that Judge Justice Johnson, in a preparatory ruling made in March 2025 ruled that there "appeared to be a "terrorist connection" in the case because the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons."[7] He said: “On s1(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, Rajiv Menon KC and others strongly argued that influencing government was not the purpose of the action - the purpose of the action was to damage weapons and save lives. I accept that this was one motivating factor - but that does not mean that another purpose was not to damage property to be made available to the Israeli government and thereby influence the Israeli government.”[7]

The terrorism enhancement is expected to be applied "to the charges of Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona (Ellie) Kamio and Fatema Rajwani under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, despite the jury only convicting them of criminal damage and having no knowledge that a terror link could be later imposed."[8] It is thought to be the first case in British legal history where people taking part in direct action have been sentenced as "terrorists".[8]

In response, Palestine Action founder Huda Ammori said, “The judge kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage which the jury decided four were guilty of. Unknowingly, the jury actually likely convicted them of terrorism. This is the first case, and therefore the test case, for trying to convict activists as terrorists, using a manipulated court process. Convicting activists for one charge, then sentencing them as terrorists, is more outrageous than the proscription of Palestine Action. Everyone needs to mobilise against it.”[8]

Move to remove judge

Ahead of the sentencing hearing on 12th June, a motion to remove Judge Johnson from the case was announced to be heard on 8 June. One of the bases on which the bid to remove the judge is to be argued is his attempt to prosecute the defending barrister.[30]

The judge is also subject of a formal complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office filed on 5 June by the campaign group Defend Our Juries. The complaint, signed by more than 3000 people including legal professionals, alleges a pattern of "biased and discriminatory conduct" on the part of Judge Johnson. This includes, "vindictiveness" in remanding three convicted defendants to custody after the retrial, despite that not being sought by the prosecution, and his treating the defendants' motivation to prevent the deaths of Palestinian civilians as an aggravating, rather than mitigating factor.[30]

Aftermath

In September 2025 Elbit Systems UK announced the closure of the Aztec West site following the attack and similar ones carried out before and afterwards by others.[31]

In the opening phase of the trial, the court was told that Evans suffered fracture to a lumbar vertebra, was left in severe pain and was unable to carry out normal activities, she was off work for about three months and later returned on reduced duties.[4] During the closing speech for the defence, it was stated that doctors examining Evans's first X-rays or a later MRI scan didn't identify any bone damage.[13] The injury required painkillers and physiotherapy to recover and resulted in no long-term consequences.[13]

References

  1. ↑ Harcombe, Chloe (19 July 2025). "Five in court over alleged Palestine Action raid of Elbit Systems". BBC News. Retrieved 19 March 2026.
  2. 1 2 Siddique, Haroon (4 February 2026). "Palestine Action activists cleared of aggravated burglary at Israeli defence firm site". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 March 2026.
  3. ↑ Swallow, Bea; Holmes, Jonathan (18 February 2026). "Palestine Action activists to face retrial over Elbit break-in". BBC News. Retrieved 19 March 2026.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Siddique, Haroon (18 November 2025). "Pro-Palestine activists used sledgehammers in action at Israel-linked firm, UK court told". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 25 November 2025.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Joshua Carroll (5 May 2026). "Four Palestine Action Activists Found Guilty of Criminal Damage". Novara Media.
  6. 1 2 3 Katherine Hearst (6 May 2026). "Palestine Action defendants found guilty of criminal damage charges in arms factory raid". Middle East Eye.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Katherine Hearst (12 May 2026). "Palestine Action activists to be sentenced as terrorists without jury's knowledge". Middle East Eye.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Harriet Williamson (12 May 2026). "Palestine Action Activists to Be Sentenced As Terrorists in Move Kept Secret From Jury and Public". Novara Media.
  9. ↑ Morrison, Sean (5 February 2025). "Palestine Action group treated like terrorists over Elbit factory action". The Bristol Cable. Retrieved 6 February 2026.
  10. ↑ Driscoll, Elisabeth (13 August 2024). "Seven charged under UK terrorism laws for Palestine Action protest". www.jurist.org ( U. Bristol Law School). Archived from the original on 13 October 2025. Retrieved 25 November 2025.
  11. ↑ Cork, Tristan (16 August 2024). "Three more charged over ram raid attack on Bristol firm". Bristol Live. Archived from the original on 23 September 2024. Retrieved 6 February 2026.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Blue, Rikki (17 February 2026). "How Palestine Action put the justice system on trial". Declassified UK. Retrieved 20 February 2026.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cook, Jonathan (9 February 2026). "Why the Jury Were Right to Acquit Palestine Action". Consortium News. Archived from the original on 10 February 2026. Retrieved 17 May 2026.
  14. ↑ Hearst, Katherine (29 January 2025). "UN experts intervene over harsh detention conditions in Palestine Action case". Middle East Eye. Archived from the original on 15 November 2025. Retrieved 20 February 2026.
  15. ↑ Quarshie, Adam; Morrison, Sean (4 February 2026). "Palestine Action's Filton 6 cleared in 'victory for moral courage'". The Bristol Cable. Retrieved 20 February 2026.
  16. ↑ "Palestine Action activist hit police officer with sledgehammer, jury told". The Independent. 24 November 2025. Archived from the original on 3 December 2025. Retrieved 25 November 2025.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 Siddique, Haroon (17 May 2026). "Yvette Cooper wrote Palestine Action article despite CPS warning it could affect trial". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 May 2026. Retrieved 17 May 2026.
  18. ↑ Morrison, Sean (19 February 2026). "How to interfere with jury trials, and lose". The Bristol Cable. Retrieved 20 February 2026.
  19. ↑ Siddique, Haroon (8 January 2026). "Palestine Action activist compared to suffragettes in court". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2026.
  20. ↑ Rogers, Paul (20 February 2026). "Protests, proscription and the power of the jury". openDemocracy. Retrieved 20 February 2026.
  21. ↑ "Palestine Action protesters not guilty of defence firm burglary". www.bbc.com. 4 February 2026. Archived from the original on 4 February 2026. Retrieved 4 February 2026.
  22. ↑ Moore, Henry (18 February 2026). "Six Palestine Action activists to face retrial over break-in at Israeli defence firm". LBC. Retrieved 23 March 2026.
  23. ↑ "Pro-Palestine activists acquitted of burglary at Israeli arms site in UK". Al Jazeera. 18 February 2026. Retrieved 18 February 2026.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Katherine Hearst (29 April 2026). "Palestine Action defendants drop lawyers and self-represent due to 'decisions made by the court'". Middle East Eye.
  25. ↑ Haroon Siddique (6 May 2026). "Barrister in Palestine Action trial facing contempt of court proceedings".
  26. 1 2 3 Dania Akkad (6 May 2026). "Michael Mansfield 'extremely concerned' by case against Palestine Action lawyer". Declassified UK.
  27. ↑ Katherine Hearst (12 May 2026). "Palestine Action defence barrister wins UK contempt of court challenge". Middle East Eye.
  28. ↑ "Crime and Policing Bill Volume 783: debated on Tuesday 14 April 2026". UK Parliament. 14 April 2026.
  29. 1 2 Charlotte England (23 April 2026). "Zarah Sultana Exposes 'Attack on Civil Liberties' That British Media Can't Report". Novara Media.
  30. 1 2 Harriet Williamson (5 June 2026). "Palestine Action Defendants Apply to Remove 'Biased' Judge". Novara Media.
  31. ↑ Siddique, Haroon; Grierson, Jamie (6 September 2025). "Israeli arms manufacturer closes UK facility targeted by Palestine Action". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 25 November 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Filton_Elbit_Systems_break-in&oldid=1358837052"