A British jury has commenced deliberations in the contentious trial of six Palestine Action activists accused of orchestrating a raid on an Israeli-owned arms manufacturing facility. The defendants—Leona Kamio (30), Samuel Corner (23), Fatema Rajwani (21), Zoe Rogers (22), Jordan Devlin (31), and Charlotte Head (29)—face multiple charges including aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder for their alleged roles in the 6 August 2024 incident at Elbit Systems’ plant near Bristol.
During the proceedings at Woolwich Crown Court, Justice Johnson provided critical guidance to jurors, emphasizing that the prosecution’s case hinges on establishing ‘contingent or conditional intention’ regarding weapon use. While acknowledging the undisputed fact that defendants entered the facility armed with sledgehammers, the judge clarified that conviction requires proof of willingness to use these tools against security personnel if confronted.
The trial revealed dramatic contradictions in testimony, particularly concerning security guard Angelo Volante’s account. Defense attorneys challenged Volante’s credibility, noting discrepancies in his statements about whether protesters’ sledgehammers made physical contact. CCTV evidence emerged as a pivotal point of contention, with defense counsel Mira Hammad characterizing missing footage from multiple security cameras as ‘suspicious’ and potentially exculpatory.
Notably, PC Sarah Grant, the officer responsible for retrieving surveillance footage, testified that Elbit’s camera system operated with inconsistent frame rates as low as 17 seconds, describing the security infrastructure as ‘not fit for purpose.’ This technical deficiency has complicated the reconstruction of events, particularly regarding an alleged altercation in a factory alcove.
The case has drawn significant attention due to the UK government’s July 2025 proscription of Palestine Action and the broader context of arms trade controversies. All defendants maintain their innocence, with Rogers’ attorney Audrey Mogan dismissing injury allegations as ‘a joke’ contrary to evidence of her client’s character and physical capabilities.
The jury’s verdict, when delivered, will determine the legal consequences for the activists and potentially establish important precedents regarding protest rights, property damage, and conditional intent in British jurisprudence.