Four activists from the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Palestine Action are moving forward with a legal challenge to a historic UK court ruling that labeled their direct action at an Israeli-owned arms facility an act of terrorism, marking the first time non-violent direct action protesters have received terrorist designations for criminal convictions in British legal history.
The case dates back to August 2024, when the four activists — Charlotte “Lottie” Head, Fatema Rajwani, Leona “Ellie” Kamio, and Samuel Corner — entered Elbit Systems’ manufacturing site near Bristol, where they damaged Israeli military equipment including quadcopter drones destined for export to Israel. By May 2025, a jury found the group guilty of criminal damage for the action, but acquitted them on all violent offenses, including aggravated burglary and violent disorder. Only Samuel Corner’s separate conviction for grievous bodily harm escaped the terrorist designation applied to the criminal damage conviction.
In a June 2025 ruling that legal experts describe as unprecedented, presiding Justice Johnson attached a “terrorist connection” to the group’s convictions, issuing prison sentences ranging from four to eight years. Under the ruling, the four are currently being held as high-risk prisoners, with the three female activists separated and transferred to different correctional facilities. The terrorist designation carries lifelong consequences beyond the prison term: even after release, the activists will face strict regulatory restrictions for decades, and the label bars Kamio, a former nursery school teacher, from ever working with children again.
Family members have spoken out about the harsh ongoing impacts of the sentencing. Sukaina Rajwani, mother of 22-year-old Fatema Rajwani, told reporters at a Thursday press conference that her daughter has already spent 10 percent of her lifetime behind bars. As a terrorist-designated prisoner, Fatema is only allowed contact with 20 pre-vetted individuals, a restriction that will cut her off from most of her family, friends, and broader support network. “She had to pick 20 people. These 20 people have a weight to bear. They have to be available; they have to be committed. They have to be happy to be screened so diligently by the government,” Rajwani told Middle East Eye. Emma Kamio, mother of 28-year-old Leona Kamio, added that “she will be 50 years old before state harassment ends for her.”
At the same press conference, the activists’ lead legal representative Simon Natas, a partner at ITN Solicitors with over 15 years of experience representing protestors, confirmed the appeal, arguing that the sentences are “manifestly excessive” and that Justice Johnson misapplied the terrorist connection designation to the case.
The legal challenge lays out multiple grounds for overturning the ruling. First, Natas argues that the judge improperly relied on a financial report commissioned by Elbit Systems’ insurers to prove the activists caused “serious harm” — a core requirement for a terrorist designation under the 2000 Terrorism Act. The legislation defines terrorism as the use of action involving serious violence against people or property to advance a political, ideological, or religious cause, with the intent to influence government or intimidate the public. Natas notes that the law offers no clear definition of what constitutes “serious damage,” with very little existing case law to guide judges on the designation. He also pointed out that when the legislation was introduced by then-Home Secretary Jack Straw in 1999, the bar for a terrorist designation was intentionally set extremely high, requiring actions that create a “climate of extreme fear” — a standard that does not fit the activists’ non-violent property damage. “It would have been unthinkable to anyone involved in those cases that they would ever have been considered there being a terrorist connection,” Natas said.
The appeal further argues that the activists had no intention to influence the UK government, which is a required element of the terrorist definition. “The intention here was simply to damage weapons to stop them being sent to Israel,” Natas explained. The legal team also contends the designation violates two key articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 7, which prohibits harsher penalties than those applicable when the offense was committed, and Article 6, which protects the right to a fair trial. Notably, during the original trial, the activists were barred from informing the jury about the potential terrorist designation and prohibited from explaining their motivations — that the weapons they damaged were intended for use by the Israeli military in Gaza.
The legal team is currently awaiting court approval for the appeal and confirmation of a hearing date.