Palestine Action Activists Convicted of Criminal Damage

Verdicts and Sentencing

Palestine Action activists guilty of criminal – Four members of the Palestine Action group were recently judged culpable of criminal damage at a UK location belonging to an Israel-based defense company, Elbit Systems. The activists—Charlotte Head (30), Samuel Corner (23), Leona Kamio (30), and Fatema Rajwani (21)—were accused of breaking into the factory near Bristol in August 2024 and causing property destruction. Meanwhile, Zoe Rogers (22) and Jordan Devlin (31) were cleared of the same charge by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court. The case, which required a retrial after the initial jury failed to agree on all counts, concluded with the group’s conviction after over 14 hours of deliberation.

The Break-In Details

The incident occurred at an Elbit Systems facility in August 2024, when the activists executed a surprise attack on the site. According to the prosecution, the group entered the premises in the early hours of the morning, armed with tools and a decommissioned prison van. They used the vehicle to smash through security barriers before proceeding to damage equipment inside the warehouse. The court heard that the activists targeted what they believed to be combat drones and military gear destined for use by the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza. However, no conclusive evidence was presented to confirm the factory’s production of such items.

“Inside the warehouse, they set about destroying as much property as they could,” said prosecutor Deanna Heer KC. “They used crowbars and hammers to damage computers, equipment, drones, and other products Elbit had manufactured.”

Estimates suggest the damage totaled approximately £1 million, a significant financial loss for the firm. The activists, dressed in red jumpsuits, allegedly acted under the belief that their actions would prevent the use of Israeli military technology in conflict zones. Despite this, Elbit Systems UK has consistently denied providing weapons to the Israeli army, leaving the group’s justification unproven.

Impact on Security Personnel

Samuel Corner’s actions were deemed particularly severe during the trial. He was found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm after striking Sgt Kate Evans with a sledgehammer, resulting in a fractured spine. While he was acquitted of the more serious charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, the damage he inflicted remains a focal point of the case. Corner claimed that his use of force was unplanned, asserting he “would never want to seriously hurt anyone” and that the violence was a spontaneous response to perceived threats.

During the final stages of the trial, the group’s defense strategized to present their case directly to the jury. All defendants except Corner left their legal representatives to address the court, emphasizing that their actions were justified. They argued that the raid was a necessary act to disrupt the production of weapons, highlighting the moral imperative behind their protest. Each activist expressed confidence in their cause, with Rogers stating, “I can say with absolute certainty that this is the best thing I have ever done.”

“There is a good chance that because of our actions that night, innocent lives were saved,” Rogers added. “So I will never be ashamed that I was on trial, that I have spent 18 months in prison, that I may face many more.”

Police and Legal Reactions

Avon and Somerset Police Federation chairman Tom Gent criticized Corner’s actions as “pure evil,” calling the sledgehammer attack on Sgt Evans “not protesting a cause.” He argued that the violence demonstrated a lack of restraint, stating, “Fracturing a brave police officer’s spine with a sledgehammer is not protesting a cause.” Gent also reiterated that peaceful demonstrations are a fundamental part of democratic society, but he insisted this incident represented “violent and deliberate thuggery.”

The trial’s outcome was influenced by the previous jury’s inability to reach verdicts on all charges, prompting a retrial. In the initial trial, the activists were acquitted of aggravated burglary—a charge that could have led to a life sentence—due to the jury’s doubt about the intent to use violence during the break-in. This decision, however, was reversed in the second trial, where the group’s actions were re-evaluated with more detailed evidence.

Consequences and Next Steps

Following the verdicts, Head, Corner, Kamio, and Rajwani were denied bail and held in custody pending sentencing on 12 June. The group had previously been in the public eye as part of their efforts to challenge Israel’s military operations, and the break-in took place before their organization was proscribed by the government on 5 July 2025. This development has intensified scrutiny of their activities, with Corner’s defense lawyer, Rajiv Menon KC, facing potential contempt of court proceedings for allegedly misleading the jury during the first trial.

The contempt charges stem from Menon’s alleged defiance of Judge Mr Justice Johnson’s instructions in the original criminal damage case. A hearing to assess the allegations is scheduled for 15 June at the Court of Appeal, where the lawyer’s conduct will be scrutinized. Meanwhile, the activists’ supporters and family members expressed emotional reactions, with tears observed in the public gallery as the verdicts were announced. The group’s trial has sparked broader discussions about the balance between activism and legal accountability.

Context and Significance

The case has drawn attention to the role of direct action in political movements, particularly those opposing Israeli military actions in Gaza. While the activists argued their raid was a necessary disruption, the prosecution emphasized the deliberate and destructive nature of their actions. The £1 million in damages underscores the scale of the incident, though the exact purpose of the factory’s operations remains a point of contention. Elbit Systems UK has maintained that the equipment produced at the site is not exclusively military, but the activists’ belief in its combat use has shaped the public perception of the case.

Corner’s conviction for grievous bodily harm adds another layer to the legal repercussions. His admission that the violence was “seemed reasonable to do something” after hearing a fellow activist scream during the raid highlights the tension between passion and planning. This defense, however, has not absolved him of the physical harm caused to Sgt Evans. The trial has become a symbol of the broader debate on whether such actions qualify as protest or constitute criminal behavior.

Broader Implications

As the case moves toward sentencing, it raises questions about the legal boundaries of activism. The activists’ conviction marks a significant moment for Palestine Action, which has been active in challenging Israel’s policies through various methods. The use of a prison van and coordinated attack on the Elbit factory demonstrates their strategic approach to disrupting operations. However, the damage and injuries sustained during the raid have led to calls for stricter measures against such groups.

The verdicts also reflect the UK’s stance on criminalizing political acts that target corporate entities. While the activists claim their actions were driven by a moral duty to prevent military harm, the court’s ruling emphasizes the legal consequences of property destruction and physical assault. The case may set a precedent for similar protests, influencing how future demonstrations are evaluated under the law. For now, the group’s members await their sentences, with their defense and supporters continuing to advocate for their cause.

The Palestine Action incident has become a focal point for discussions on the intersection of activism and law, with its outcomes shaping the narrative of both the group and the government’s response. As the activists prepare for their next legal steps, the broader implications of their actions will likely continue to spark debate in public and political spheres alike.