Palestine Action Activists Acquitted of Elbit Burglary Charges in Dramatic Trial
Activists Cleared of Elbit Burglary in 'Craziest 20 Minutes' Case

Palestine Action Activists Cleared of Aggravated Burglary in Elbit Factory Case

In a significant legal outcome, six members of the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action have been acquitted of aggravated burglary charges relating to a dramatic break-in at a UK factory owned by Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems. The verdict was delivered at Woolwich Crown Court after an intense trial that captivated public attention.

The Defendants and Charges

The activists – Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, Fatema Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, and Jordan Devlin – faced serious allegations after a prison van was driven into Elbit Systems' Bristol facility in the early hours of August 6, 2024. Prosecutors had accused them of using or threatening unlawful violence and wielding sledgehammers as weapons during the incident.

After deliberating for 36 hours and 34 minutes, the jury found all six not guilty of aggravated burglary. Additionally, Ms Rajwani, Ms Rogers, and Mr Devlin were cleared of violent disorder charges. However, the jury could not reach verdicts on criminal damage charges against all defendants, nor on allegations that Mr Corner inflicted grievous bodily harm on Police Sergeant Kate Evans, or violent disorder charges against Ms Head, Mr Corner, and Ms Kamio.

The 'Craziest 20 Minutes' Action

The court heard dramatic details of what defendant Charlotte Head described as "the craziest 20 minutes of my life." According to trial evidence, Ms Head, a charity worker, drove a prison van into the site's perimeter fence around 3:30am before using the vehicle "as a battering ram" to gain entry to the factory.

Footage shown to jurors depicted the six activists wearing distinctive red jumpsuits during their demonstration. Prosecutors alleged they attempted to "cause as much damage as possible and obtain information about the company." Body-worn camera footage from security guards showed three defendants approaching a guard while shouting expletives, with one holding a lighted flare and two others brandishing sledgehammers.

Defence Arguments and Motivations

All defendants except Mr Devlin gave evidence, admitting they had entered the factory without permission and damaged Elbit equipment including computers and drones. However, they maintained the sledgehammers were "solely for destroying property" and were "not in any circumstances intended to injure security staff."

Defence barrister Rajiv Menon KC argued his clients had not expected security guards to enter the factory during their action, describing them as "completely out of their depth." The court heard the defendants "genuinely believed" their demonstration would help the Palestinian cause in Gaza, framing their actions as political protest rather than criminal intent.

Jury Influence Concerns

During the trial, the court became aware of posters appearing on bus stops and lampposts near the courthouse bearing messages about "jury equity" – the principle that juries can acquit defendants on moral grounds even when they believe the law has been broken. One message read: "The jury decide not the judge," while another stated: "Jurors can give a not guilty verdict even when they believe a defendant has broken the law."

Prosecutor Deanna Heer KC informed the judge that police had been removing the posters, but they "keep reappearing." One juror emailed the court to flag they had seen the displays, expressing concern that someone was "trying to influence the jury and their decisions."

Courtroom Reactions and Aftermath

As the verdicts were announced, the six activists hugged each other in the dock while approximately a dozen supporters cheered from the public gallery above. The mixed outcome – with acquittals on the most serious charges but no verdicts on others – leaves legal questions unresolved while marking a significant victory for the Palestine Action movement.

The case has highlighted tensions around protest rights, corporate accountability, and international conflicts playing out on British soil, with the defendants' motivations rooted in opposition to Elbit Systems' alleged connections to Israeli military operations in Gaza.