Palestine Action Protesters Acquitted in High-Profile Elbit Systems Trial
In a significant development for UK activism surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict, six members of the direct-action group Palestine Action have been cleared of aggravated burglary charges following a dramatic break-in at an Elbit Systems facility near Bristol. The verdict, delivered at Woolwich Crown Court, underscores ongoing debates about protest rights, corporate complicity in international conflicts, and the boundaries of civil disobedience in Britain.
The Incident: A Dawn Raid on Defence Firm
The events unfolded in the early hours of August 6, 2024, when the activists targeted Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of the Israeli defence giant accused by campaigners of supplying weapons used in Gaza. Palestine Action, known for its bold tactics against what it calls 'complicit' arms manufacturers, alleges that Elbit plays a key role in the Israeli military's operations—a claim the company vehemently denies.
According to trial testimony, Charlotte Head, a 29-year-old charity worker, drove a stolen prison van into the site's perimeter fence, which was then repurposed as a battering ram to breach the factory. Once inside, the group—comprising Head, Samuel Corner (23), Leona Kamio (30), Fatema Rajwani (21), Zoe Rogers (22), and Jordan Devlin (31)—carried out what they described as a symbolic protest. They uploaded footage of the raid to social media, highlighting alleged weapon components inside the facility.
Prosecutors painted a chaotic picture, claiming the activists arrived armed with sledgehammers, intent on confrontation. Security guards reportedly faced verbal abuse, threats with tools, a whipping incident, and even a faceful of foam from a fire extinguisher. However, the defence argued that the protesters had no violent intentions and were merely defending themselves against an overzealous security response. None of the guards are facing criminal charges, adding layers to the narrative of who was truly at risk that night.
The Trial: Two Months of Intense Scrutiny
The trial, which began in November 2025, lasted two months and captivated activists, legal experts, and international observers. The jury deliberated for over 36 hours before reaching their decision on February 4, 2026. In a moment of raw emotion, the defendants hugged in the dock and waved to cheering supporters in the public gallery as the judge exited.
While all six were acquitted of the primary aggravated burglary charge, outcomes on secondary counts were mixed. Rajwani, Rogers, and Devlin were fully cleared of violent disorder. No verdicts were reached for Head, Corner, and Kamio on the same charge. Additionally, Corner faced a separate accusation of grievous bodily harm for allegedly striking a police sergeant with a sledgehammer during the arrest—another count on which the jury deadlocked.
Defence barrister Rajiv Menon KC emphasized that the activists were 'completely out of their depth,' having not anticipated security guards entering the building mid-action. Head herself recounted the raid as the 'craziest 20 minutes' of her life, driven by a genuine belief that their protest could spotlight the Palestinian plight amid the escalating Gaza crisis.
External Influences and Jury Equity
The trial wasn't without controversy outside the courtroom. Posters appeared on bus stops and lampposts near Woolwich Crown Court, proclaiming messages like 'The jury decide not the judge' and explaining 'jury equity'—the legal principle allowing jurors to acquit based on moral conscience, even if technical guilt is evident. Prosecutors noted police efforts to remove the signs, which kept reappearing, but the judge instructed the jury to ignore external influences and focus solely on courtroom evidence.
This backdrop highlights broader tensions in UK protest law. Just months after the raid, on July 5, 2025, the government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, making support for the group punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The timing is crucial: the break-in predated this ban, shielding the defendants from terrorism-related charges but raising questions about retrospective justice for similar actions.
Implications for Activism and UK-Israel Relations
The acquittal represents a partial victory for Palestine Action, bolstering their narrative of non-violent resistance against perceived war profiteering. Elbit Systems has maintained that it does not supply weapons directly tied to Gaza operations, but the group's campaigns have disrupted operations at multiple UK sites, drawing global attention.
Legal experts suggest this case could set precedents for how courts handle direct-action protests linked to geopolitical conflicts. With unresolved charges potentially leading to retrials, the saga isn't over. Prosecutors must decide whether to pursue second trials, a move that could reignite public debate on free speech versus security.
For the pro-Palestine movement in the UK, the verdict arrives amid heightened scrutiny. The Israel-Gaza war, now in its third year, has fueled widespread demonstrations, but recent crackdowns on activism signal a tightening grip. Supporters argue that acquittals like this affirm the moral imperative of solidarity, while critics warn of escalating risks to public order.
As Bristol and the wider West of England region continue to host key defence industry players, incidents like this underscore the local-global nexus of conflict. Palestine Action's story is far from concluded; with the group now underground due to its proscribed status, future actions may evolve, but their message of accountability endures.
Broader Context: Protest in a Polarized World
Beyond the courtroom, this trial reflects deeper societal divides. The activists' motivations stem from horror at Gaza's humanitarian crisis, where thousands have perished. Their actions, while disruptive, aim to force transparency on UK firms' roles in arms exports—exports that reached record highs in recent years.
Yet, the prosecution's focus on violence allegations reveals challenges in distinguishing protest from criminality. As one supporter outside court put it, 'This isn't about burglary; it's about breaking the silence on complicity.' With partial verdicts leaving threads unresolved, the full impact on UK activism remains to be seen.
In the end, the Woolwich jury's decision not only frees six individuals but challenges Britain to confront its place in global conflicts. Whether this emboldens more direct actions or deters them depends on the next legal moves—and the evolving narrative of justice in turbulent times.
