A high-profile retrial of six pro-Palestine activists linked to a 2024 raid on a UK facility operated by Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems has concluded with four convictions, triggering fierce condemnation from legal teams, family members, and human rights advocates over what they decry as a politically skewed, unfair judicial process.
On 6 August 2024, the six activists carried out a direct action at Elbit Systems’ plant near Bristol, leading to charges including criminal damage, violent disorder, and assault against law enforcement. After a first trial that ended with a full acquittal on aggravated burglary charges and mixed outcomes for other counts, the CPS opted to retry the group on the outstanding criminal damage charge. Two activists – 31-year-old Jordan Devlin and 22-year-old Zoe Rogers – were ultimately cleared of criminal damage in the retrial, which concluded at London’s Woolwich Crown Court last Tuesday.
The four found guilty are 30-year-old Leona Kamio, 23-year-old Samuel Corner, 21-year-old Fatema Rajwani, and 29-year-old Charlotte Head. All were convicted unanimously on criminal damage charges connected to the raid. Corner faced an additional charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent for hitting a police officer with a sledgehammer; he was acquitted of the more severe count, but found guilty by an 11-1 majority verdict of the lesser offence of inflicting GBH without intent. Following the initial trial, the CPS also dropped all outstanding violent disorder charges against the four convicted activists.
Prior to the first trial’s conclusion, all six defendants spent 18 months in pre-trial detention – a period that far exceeds the UK’s standard custody time limits ahead of trial. They were granted bail in February this year, and legal representatives confirm none of the activists have breached any bail conditions in the months since their release. Despite this track record of compliance, Justice Andrew Johnson ruled to remand the four convicted activists back into custody immediately after the guilty verdicts were returned, to await their sentencing scheduled for 12 June.
In justifying his remand decision, Johnson argued there were “substantial grounds” to believe the four would reoffend, noting that their closing statements made it clear they still viewed their actions as morally justified. The ruling left Rajwani and Head visibly distraught, with the pair breaking down in tears in the dock.
Defence legal teams have roundly rejected the justification for remand. Mira Hammad, representing Kamio, pointed out that the evidence presented in the retrial is identical to the evidence available when Johnson granted bail back in February, with no new factors to justify a change in custody status. Audrey Cherryl Mogan, counsel for acquitted defendant Zoe Rogers, called the decision “shocking”, emphasizing that the activists had fully complied with all bail requirements, providing tangible proof that they posed no risk of reoffending or failure to attend court.
Family members of the activists have gone further, denouncing the custody decision as cruel and politically motivated. Clare Hinchcliffe, mother of Zoe Rogers, told reporters outside Woolwich Crown Court that the 18 months the group spent in pre-trial detention without conviction already amounts to a sentence equivalent to that for a four-year criminal offence. “The cruelty of that and the spite of that just takes my breath away,” Hinchcliffe said, adding that the entire trial had been shaped by political influence and unfair restrictions on what evidence jurors were permitted to hear. In a social media post, Hinchcliffe added that Rogers found the convictions of her co-defendants devastating, and that Rogers had said she would not have shed a tear if all six had been found guilty.
Speaking to reporters after the verdict, Rogers said her convicted co-defendants should not be behind bars, and added that she does not fault the jury, given that critical context was withheld from them throughout the proceedings. Devlin, who was also acquitted, publicly admitted he had damaged drone equipment at the facility, calling the act an honour. He argued that his acquittal came about after missing security camera footage – including footage showing him being struck in the face by a security guard during the raid – backfired for the prosecution, and that the conviction of his co-defendants is a travesty of justice, noting “the damage to Elbit weapons they’re accused of was to save Palestinian lives.”
Beyond the convictions and remand decision, the case has sparked major constitutional controversy over judicial restrictions on defence argument and ongoing contempt of court proceedings against lead defence counsel Rajiv Menon KC. From the outset of the first trial, Justice Johnson barred defendants from presenting evidence about their motivations connected to Elbit’s role supplying arms to Israel for its military campaign in Gaza, instructing jurors that their views on Israel’s actions in Gaza were irrelevant to the case. He also barred defence lawyers from reminding jurors of their long-established right to acquit defendants based on conscience, a legal principle known as jury equity, which dates back to the 1670 Bushell’s Case that established jury independence in English common law.
During his closing statement in the first trial, Menon – who represents Head in both trials – read the inscription on a Bushell’s Case plaque at London’s Old Bailey, and argued that it was ridiculous to expect jurors to ignore the wider context of the activists’ actions, including Elbit’s role in Gaza. Justice Johnson ruled that Menon’s speech defied the court’s pre-trial directions, leading to contempt of court proceedings against the barrister. Menon has challenged the ruling, and the case is now awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal.
Veteran human rights barrister Michael Mansfield KC, who has worked alongside Menon on high-profile public inquiries including the Grenfell Tower fire and Hillsborough disaster, called the proceedings against Menon unprecedented. “I’ve been at the bar for well over 50 years, and I am unaware of any case where counsel has been accused of contempt of court,” Mansfield told Middle East Eye. He noted that even if no punishment is ultimately issued, the contempt allegation itself already risks damaging Menon’s reputation and ability to practice. He added that the case creates a dangerous chilling effect, adding that the court’s handling of the issue – which was processed publicly rather than through the standard internal professional route through the Bar Council – is extraordinary. Garden Court Chambers, Menon’s chambers, echoed these concerns, saying the prosecution is “wholly without historical precedent” and undermines the core principle that defendants in high-profile political cases are entitled to robust, committed legal representation.
Towards the end of the retrial, the defendants took the unusual step of dismissing their legal team and delivering their own closing statements. Head told jurors that court restrictions had prevented her defence team from representing the group fairly, adding that proposed UK government reforms to eliminate jury trials in many cases are rooted in fear of the power that juries hold: “They are afraid of the power you hold as a jury,” she said. Rogers echoed the criticism of evidence restrictions, telling jurors that throughout the three-week trial, key terms including “genocide” had been effectively blacklisted from court proceedings, with no mention of the word permitted until the closing statements by the defendants.
Outside the court, the Metropolitan Police imposed a Section 14 order banning demonstrations near the Woolwich Crown Court building during the trial. Nine supporters were arrested in April for breaching the order after holding signs reminding jurors of jury equity, a move that came despite a recent High Court ruling that found a similar placard held by activist Trudi Warner was protected free speech and did not improperly influence juries.
The Judicial Office declined to comment on the case when approached by Middle East Eye. Ahead of the 12 June sentencing, the defence has called for full disclosure of the value of damage claimed by Elbit Systems, noting the prosecution has cited an unsubstantiated figure of £1 million from an anonymous witness, with no disclosure of the witness identity or itemized list of damaged property. Justice Johnson has said sentencing will be based on an assessment of offence seriousness rather than a strict financial value of damage, and the defence has urged the judge to consider that the action targeted an arms manufacturer supplying weapons to Israel, arguing the context requires a different assessment than an attack on an unrelated civilian business.