2024 Filton Elbit Systems break-in
Protest against defence contractor in UK
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 weapons company.
The activists drove a repurposed prison van into the compound, breached security fences, entered the facility and caused damage to property and equipment; the action also involved confrontations with security personnel and police.[4]
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. The legal process was marked by several notable features including an attempt to convict a defence barrister of contempt of court,[5] the absence of identified witnesses from Elbit,[6] the defendants being forbidden from mentioning the Gaza Genocide,[7] and the application of a "terrorism connection" to the charges which was kept secret from the jury and the public.[8][7]
Six activists were arrested and later charged with aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder. One defendant was additionally charged with GBH, for striking a police officer with a sledgehammer, which the prosecution alleged was intentionally. Two trials followed, during which the accused spent lengthy periods on remand. The first trial ended with all defendants found not guilty of aggravated burglary and 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.[9][10]
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,[8] meaning the jury had returned convictions without knowing that the defendants faced significantly more severe sentencing and registration as "terrorists", which will severely restrict their future lives after release.[7]
According to the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, this was applied based on the "appearance" of a terrorism connection, as the property damage was caused with the intent "to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons," and their actions were "for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause".[11][12]
On 12 June 2026, the four activists were sentenced as terrorists, with their sentences ranging from 4 to 8 years.[13][14] This ruling is the first time in British legal history that protestors convicted of property damage have faced a terrorism designation upon sentencing.[11]
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.[15]
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.[16]
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.[17]
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] The extent of the damage caused by the activists, and to what materials, was unclear during the trial. In the week before sentencing, a report was submitted by an independent forensic analyst based on Elbit's insurance claim.[12] This listed damage to military assets including the "Magni-X" drone and multiple "Thor" drones in the "Legion-X" and "HELIOS" configurations.[12]
During the break-in, there was a confrontation between the activists and responding security staff and police. Samuel Corner fractured police officer Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer.[13] Body camera footage, revealed to the defence only partway through the first trial, showed one security guard, Angelo Volante, entering the site wielding a whip and later moving towards someone while holding a sledgehammer.[6]
During the trial, it was revealed that the map of factory CCTV cameras given to the defence team was incomplete and lacked coverage of several areas, including those where disputed incidents took place.[6] After the raid, Elbit had sole control and access to the CCTV system for two days following, according to PC Sarah Grant under cross-examination.[6] Communication between that officer and an senior Elbit employee granted anonymity ("Witness Alpha") included her observation that "There's a huge opportunity for the defence counsel to use the gaps and jumps to their advantage", which was criticised by the defence barrister as appearing to show that police were "chatting with Israel's largest arms manufacturer about what the defence counsel might do".[6]
Six people were arrested at the site that day, while additional arrests followed in nationwide raids in the days and months afterward.[18] The total number of activists charged in relation to the break-in eventually reached 24, a group widely referred to as the "Filton 24".
In September 2025 Elbit Systems UK announced the closure of the Aztec West site following this raid and similar ones carried out both before and afterwards.[19]
Legal proceedings
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,[6] and violent disorder.[20] Nevertheless, the CPS indicated it would argue the offences had a "terrorist connection," which could be treated as an aggravating factor at sentencing.[21] 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.[8][7] 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.[20]
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.[22] The defendants denied all charges against them.[23] 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".[24] 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".[24] Before publication, the CPS warned Cooper the article could unfairly impact the trial.[24] 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.[24] In a pre-trial ruling, the judge, Justice Johnson, dismissed the defence's application for abuse of process.[24]
For the trial, the judge ruled inadmissible the defendants' defence of "lawful excuse": that they had done what they had done to prevent a greater harm - they'd destroyed weapons that would have been used to kill civilians in Gaza.[25]
During proceedings, police released to the press edited prosecution footage from the night of 6 August 2024.[6][20] 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.[6] Some footage was missing. Newly-released footage showed Elbit security staff entering the factory with a whip, and at one stage holding a sledgehammer.[6] The footage showed much of the violence was initiated by security staff.[20] 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.[6]
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.[6]
Summing up was expected to be completed on Friday 9 January.[26] The trial ran for 10 weeks.[27] 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.[28]
The CPS said the people tried would face retrial for the charges on which the jury were unable to reach a verdict.[29]
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.[30]
Second trial
Reporting restrictions for the second trial
On 18 November 2025, at the first trial, Judge Johnson implemented a reporting restriction in accordance with the terrorist connection ruling statutory as per section 41 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Act. The judge had received "...written and oral submissions from a number of broadcasters and media organisations and from a BBC journalist." to report the connection.[31]
Reporting restrictions had been also been implemented after the pre-trial on 27 March 2025 in which the prosecution applied to make a "terrorist connection" under section 29 (1 and 1c) of Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. It states:
Where it appears to a judge of the Crown Court that an indictment reveals a case of such complexity, a case of such seriousness] or a case whose trial is likely to be of such length, that substantial benefits are likely to accrue from a hearing (a)before [the time when the jury are sworn] , and (b)for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection[32]
Followed by 1c
An order that a preparatory hearing shall be held must also be made by a judge of the Crown court in every case which (whether or not it falls within subsection (1) or (1A)) is a case in which—
(a)at least one of the offences charged by the indictment against at least one of the persons charged is an offence carrying a maximum of at least 10 years' imprisonment; and
(b)it appears to the judge that evidence on the indictment reveals that conduct in respect of which that offence is charged had a terrorist connection.][32]
After the first trial had ended on 4 February 2026 and the jury had not resulted in a verdict. ITN, applied to lift the restriction on reporting the terrorist connection ruling. The defendants opposed that application and contended that the public interest in reporting the terrorist connection ruling was “not high” and that it would be prejudicial to them for the terrorist connection ruling to be reported in advance of, or during, the re-trial. As such, Justice Johnson accepted their submission and the reporting restriction remained in place throughout the retrial.[31]
The decision for the terrorism connection
As it was part of section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, it was for the court to decide the connection not the jury who in the retrial were there solely to decide the facts on the charge of criminal damage. The defendants were informed of this. The sentencing guidelines state: "Where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence specified in Schedule 1 of the Sentencing Code, and it appears that the offence has or may have a terrorist connection, the court must determine whether that is the case. To make this determination the court may hear evidence, and must take account of any representations made by the parties. If the court determines that the offence has a terrorist connection it must treat that fact as a statutory aggravating factor and state in open court that the offence was so aggravated."[33]
Justice Johnson presented his reasoning for the connection in his ruling on 15 June 2026.
In paragraph 16, For this purpose, “terrorism” has the meaning prescribed by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000: section 69(3) Sentencing Act 2020 [31]
Paragraph 51: It follows that I am sure that each defendant’s offence of criminal damage:
(1) Involved serious damage to property.
(2) Was designed to influence the government or an international governmental
organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
(3) Was for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause.
In his sentencing remarks, Justice Johnson stated on paragraph 3.3 the statutory test set by Parliament:
To decide whether your offence had a terrorist connection, the court must apply the test set out by Parliament. Your offence had a terrorist connection if it (1) involved serious damage to property and (2) was designed to influence a government or to intimidate a section of the public and (3) was for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause. That question must be considered separately in respect of each of you, but, on the evidence there is no material distinction between you.[34]
He would go on to state the following:
Damage to property meaning
Paragraph 36:
I therefore interpret the words “serious damage to property” as meaning what they say, without any of the various additional glosses that the defence seek to apply. That said, the words must be construed in their statutory context which informs the degree of seriousness required to meet the threshold of “serious”. The statutory context is a provision that defines “terrorism”. In that context the word “serious” must be treated as setting a very high bar. The word “serious” was intended to do real work in the interpretive exercise.[31]
To influence government
Justice Johnson rejected the prosecution's case that they had designed to influence the Israeli government, he made the following remarks under paragraph 39:
"...Although the defendants’ conduct was designed to constrain Israel’s military activities, the prosecution has not shown that it was designed to influence the government of Israel in the sense required by section 1(1)(b) of the 2000 Act. I therefore reject the prosecution submission that a terrorist connection finding can be made by reference to an intention to influence the Israeli government.[31]To intimidate the public or a section of the public
Paragraph 47: The target of the intimidation was not a single individual or a small group. It comprised those who work for Elbit and other linked businesses. That comprises a relatively large group of people that, collectively, comfortably come within the scope of “a section of the public”: Smith per Holroyde LJ at [48] – [51].[31]However, he would add in paragraph 49:
I am, therefore, sure that in respect of each defendant the offence of criminal damage was designed both to influence the United Kingdom government and to intimidate a section of the public.[31]For the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause
Paragraph 50
It is then necessary to decide whether each defendant’s offence was for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause. I am sure that it was. It was intended to advance each defendant’s belief that Israel’s approach to Palestine generally, and its military activities in Gaza in particular, were wrong, that the United Kingdom government should not be permitting the export of weapons to Israel, and that it was legitimate to damage the property of others in the pursuit of that cause.[31]
Application of Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020
During the second trial, on 14 April 2026 the MP for Coventry Zarah Sultana used parliamentary privilege to raise concerns in the House of Commons regarding the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. She stated the following: "Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to exercise the privilege of this House to place something on the public record that the mainstream press has chosen to ignore."[35]
The media had not chosen to ignore it. There had been two reporting restrictions imposed during the first and second trial and the media had applied to have them removed. The Judge listened to the defendants plea on the grounds such reporting would prejudice a fair trial for their retrial and there was low public interest. Hence the reporting restrictions remained in place. ITN had applied after the first trial had ended where the jury had failed to reach a verdict to report them. Indeed in his ruling on the terrorist connection on 15 June 2026, the Judge, Justice Johnson said "There was no opposition to the defence application for a reporting restriction." This meant that the prosecution had not applied to contest the restriction and that it supported the right to a fair trial.[31]
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".[36]
The next week it was noted that no "British media outlet can safely report or play the contents of what she said"[37] 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".[37]
The reporting restrictions were in place to ensure that no juror would see any reporting which referenced the aggravating factor (this means it would increase the length of their sentence given the sentence). The jury and judge have separate roles as established in Bushel's Case of 1670. Juries are the arbiters of facts determining a verdict and the judge determines the sentence. The reason for the separation is that it could affect the jury's ability to deliver a fair trial. The jury decides if a crime has been committed and informs the court, and the Judge then determines the sentence. Sentencing is complex, built on case law and requires a careful balance between mitigating and aggravating factors.[38][39]
As it was part of section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which means it was for the court to decide the connection not the jury. The defendants were informed of this. The sentencing guidelines state: "Where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence specified in Schedule 1 of the Sentencing Code, and it appears that the offence has or may have a terrorist connection, the court must determine whether that is the case. To make this determination the court may hear evidence, and must take account of any representations made by the parties. If the court determines that the offence has a terrorist connection it must treat that fact as a statutory aggravating factor and state in open court that the offence was so aggravated."[33]
After the conclusion of the contempt case against Rajiv Menon, on 12 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."[8] 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.”[8]
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."[7] It is thought to be the first case in British legal history where people taking part in direct action have been sentenced as "terrorists".[7]
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.”[7]
Prohibited defence arguments
For the second trial which was due to occur on 7 April 2026, the judge placed restrictions on the arguments which the defendants were permitted to raise before the jury.
The previous trial judge; Judge Johnson had given the following ruling on 22 December 2025 as to the legal directions to the jury.
No counsel is permitted in their closing speeches to invite the jury to disregard the court’s rulings of law or to disregard their juror oaths or to apply what has been described as the principle of jury equity or to inform them of it[40]
On the 8 January 2026 in the first trial, Rajiv Menon KC made his closing remarks to the jury as he represented the defendants. Judge Johnson considered that his closing remarks may have contravened his previous ruling. The first trial had concluded on the 4th of February 2026 with the jury discharged as they had failed to deliver a verdict. On or thereafter 14 February 2026, the trial judge referred the matter to
On the 13 March 2026, an order of the administrative court was sent to the appellant, Rajiv Menon KC. It stated the following notice:
This matter arises out of proceedings at the Crown Court (R v Charlotte Head and others, Crown Court at Woolwich, re-trial due to start on 7 April 2026). There shall be no reporting of these proceedings pending the outcome of that re-trial or further order in the meantime. This order is made under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 because it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings.[40]
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.[7] They were also prevented from relying on 'necessity 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.[7]
Also 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 7 October 2023, and their previous acquittals on charges of aggravated burglary and violent disorder.[7] For the duration of the trial, UK media were forbidden to report on these restrictions.[7]
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".[41] 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".[41] 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."[41] Zoe Rogers stated that the targeted site held export licences to Israel and had been visited by its ambassador.[41] "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".[41] She also noted that during the trial, "certain words have been blacklisted, that, until our speeches, the word 'genocide' hasn't been said once".[41]
Verdict
On 5 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.[9][10] 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.[9][10]
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.[9]
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.[5]
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.[42]
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".[42] 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".[42]
On 30 April 2026, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) heard the contempt of court case against Rajiv Menon KC under Case No: CA-2026-000767 and their judgement was published on 12 May 2026. The judgement of the court stated in paragraph 62:
We do not underestimate the difficulties with which the trial judge was faced in the course of the trial. There was no ideal solution. No criticism could possibly be made of his decision not to attempt to take summary action during the trial. It would have been open to him to refer the alleged contempt to the Attorney General, or to the Bar Standards Board as an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct. Both processes are likely to lead to delay where there was a need to ensure that there was compliance with orders of the court, particularly in the light of the imminent retrial. He would have had jurisdiction to refer the alleged contempt to another High Court judge sitting as a judge of the Crown Court if a summary process was thought to be required. But in our view he had no jurisdiction to make a direct reference to the High Court; nor would the Divisional Court have jurisdiction to deal with the case following the direct reference.[40]
Adding in paragraph 63:
Because of our decision on the issue of jurisdiction it has been unnecessary to address the other complaints raised by the Grounds of Appeal, and we express no view about them.[40]
On 12 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."[43]
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.[7]
Sentencing and reaction
Move to remove judge
Ahead of the sentencing hearing on 12 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 was to be argued was his attempt to prosecute the defending barrister.[44]
The judge was 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 3,000 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.[44]
However, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office only deals with complaints about personal conduct and is unable to intervene in court cases.[45]
Sentencing
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Johnson stated in paragraph 1.3:
You were each appalled at what was happening in the Middle East, particularly after 7 October 2023. You were each convinced that Israel was committing unlawful acts of violence, even genocide, against innocent civilians living in Gaza, including children. You are completely entitled to hold those beliefs. They are shared by many other people. There were lawful democratic means available to you to express your views and to seek to effect change. You were able to, and did, take part in lawful protests. At least one of you wrote to your Member of Parliament. You could have sought a ruling from the court to prevent the export of weapons to Israel, as others did. But you were dissatisfied and disillusioned with the prospect that anything might change by lawful democratic means. So, instead, you decided to take the law into your own hands.[34]
He also added on paragraph 2.2:
"It is not for the court to make political or legal or factual judgements about events in the Middle East or about the role or conduct of Elbit in those events. The court’s role in sentencing is defined and limited by legislation passed by Parliament. That requires an assessment of the seriousness of your offending by reference to your culpability in committing the offence and the harm which the offence caused or was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. It does not involve adjudicating upon the conduct of third parties who are not defendants before the court and whose actions are not the subject of these proceedings.[34]
In his final remark, paragraph 9, he referred to the Police Constable Kate Evans by offering his commendation:
I commend Police Constable Kate Evans. All police officers take an oath to act with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality and to accord equal respect to all people. Constable Evans discharged that oath to an exceptional degree. After her spine had been fractured by Mr Corner's sledgehammer, her reaction was to try to help him. He claimed to be in discomfort because his handcuffs were too tight. Sergeant Evans, although in great pain, manoeuvred herself into a position where she could check that the handcuffs had been applied correctly and were not causing unnecessary discomfort.[34]
In June 2026 Judge Johnson sentencing remarks on mitigation, paragraph 4.14 said:
The fact that you were trying to shut down a company that you thought was acting unlawfully does not reduce the seriousness of the offence. In this country we all live under the rule of law. That means that the law applies to everyone, everyone is equal before the law, and everyone is entitled to look to the law to protect them and their property from criminality. The law does not tolerate vigilantism. Elbit is entitled to look to the police and the courts to protect its property. Those who believe that Elbit is acting unlawfully are not entitled to take the law into their own hands and damage its property. The fact that you did so does not amount to mitigation. Rather, your motivation and the way in which you acted on your motivation is reflected in the aggravating features I have identified. That includes the offence having a terrorist connection but where the extent of the uplift takes account of all the circumstances.[34]
Paragraph 4.16:
I have taken full account of your exceptional positive good character. In each of your cases it is a substantial mitigating feature which will be reflected in a considerable reduction in each of your sentences. I have given it the greatest possible weight in each case.[34]
Charlotte Head was handed a custodial sentence of six years less 45 days and disqualified from driving for four years (she drove the van). Leona Kamio was sentenced to six years less 45 days. Fatema Rajwani was sentenced to five years and eight months less 45 days. Samuel Corner was sentenced to a combined eight years and eight months for criminal damage and GBH Without Intent.[12][13]
Following her sentencing, Kamio shouted, "In order to hear the birds, the warplanes must be silent", referencing Palestinian poet Marwan Makhoul.[46]
A protest of several hundred people outside the court saw 107 arrests made, some for holding placards in support of Palestine Action.[13] Several people lay in the road to attempt to block the prison van believed to be carrying the defendants;[13] attempts were made to open the van and riot police were used to disperse the crowd.[13]