Activists convicted of causing £1 million of criminal damage to an Israel-linked defence firm could be sentenced as terrorists, a court has ruled.
Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani were found guilty last week at Woolwich Crown Court of criminal damage following a raid on the Bristol factory of Elbit Systems on 6 August 2024. Corner was also convicted of grievous bodily harm after fracturing a police officer’s spine during the incident.
In a pre-trial ruling that can now be reported, Mr Justice Johnson determined that the charges against the four activists had a “terrorist connection”. The jury that convicted them was not told of this ruling or of the possibility that the defendants could face aggravated sentences as a result.
If the judge decides to treat the offences as having a terrorist connection when he sentences the activists on 12 June, the legal consequences are severe. Longer prison terms would be imposed, and those sentences must be served in full, unlike standard custodial terms where a portion is typically served on licence. Upon release, the activists could be subject to lifelong monitoring by counter-terrorism police, including compulsory registration of new devices, bank accounts, email addresses and relationships, with the risk of re-imprisonment for any failure to comply.
The legal basis for such a sentence lies in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. These statutes allow courts to treat a “terrorist connection” as an aggravating factor for non-terrorism offences. An offence has such a connection if it is an act of terrorism, occurs in the course of an act of terrorism, or is committed for the purposes of terrorism.
Palestine Action, the direct action network to which the activists belong, was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government in July 2025. However, the High Court declared that ban unlawful in February this year. The government is appealing that decision, and the Court of Appeal has yet to deliver its ruling. It remains unclear whether that appeal will be concluded before Mr Justice Johnson passes sentence.
Despite the government’s court defeat on proscription, the judge may still be asked to consider a terror link for sentencing purposes. The Court of Appeal’s decision on the ban’s legality does not automatically invalidate the pre-trial finding of a terrorist connection, which was made under separate legislation.
The raid and the convictions
The attack on the Elbit Systems factory unfolded on the morning of 6 August 2024. The activists used an old prison van to smash into the site, then entered wearing red boilersuits and carrying sledgehammers and crowbars. They filmed themselves as they destroyed computers and drones, and used fire extinguishers to spray red paint across walls and floors. The total damage was estimated at £1 million.
During the raid, clashes broke out with police and security guards. Corner was found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – which carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment – against Police Sergeant Kate Evans, whose spine was fractured. He had been cleared of the more serious charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, which can attract a life sentence.
At the first trial of the case, all six defendants – including two others, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin, who were later acquitted of criminal damage – were cleared of aggravated burglary. Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin were also acquitted of violent disorder at that trial, and prosecutors subsequently abandoned the same charge against the remaining three defendants.
The activists said their action was necessary to protect Palestinians and that they believed Elbit Systems was supplying weapons to Israel for use in the war in Gaza. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms producer, has multiple UK subsidiaries, employing more than 680 people across 16 sites. Its portfolio includes drones, electronic warfare systems and surveillance technology. The company has obtained export licences for military goods to Israel, and its UK-made components have been linked to drones used by the Israeli military. Elbit Systems denies manufacturing or exporting weapons directly to the Israeli military.
Legal challenges and limits on the defence
Mr Justice Johnson imposed significant restrictions on what the defendants could argue in court. In pre-trial rulings that can now be reported, he banned the activists from putting forward documents “which relates to the defendants’ reasons for believing that Elbit supplied Israel with weapons and that Israel’s military operations in Gaza were unlawful”.
They were permitted to tell the jury that the raid was part of a campaign of direct action by Palestine Action to damage Elbit property, that they believed the company was supplying weapons to Israel for use in Gaza, and that they believed Israel’s actions in Gaza were unlawful. But the judge ruled that such evidence “need not, and should not be, extensive” and that it would be “disproportionate and a waste of the jury’s time for it to be developed at undue length”. He added: “There is a risk that if it is not carefully presented and controlled, such evidence might be misconstrued by the jury as an indicator that it is relevant for the jury to consider the legality of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.”
Supporters of the defendants have complained of a “stitch-up”, arguing that the jury was deliberately kept in the dark about the potential terrorist connection and the enhanced sentences that could follow. They also say the judge unduly restricted the defence’s ability to present the activists’ motivations.
Separately, the barrister who represented Head, Rajiv Menon KC, faced contempt of court proceedings over his closing speech in the first trial. He was accused by the judge of flouting orders about the evidence that could be presented and of misleading the jury about the prosecution case. However, the Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that the judge had made an error when referring the contempt case to the High Court, and ordered that he consider the matter again.
Hundreds of supporters of Palestine Action have been arrested and charged with a terrorism offence since the original proscription order was made. Typically they were detained after holding up placards at mass demonstrations offering support for the group and stating that they oppose genocide. The arrests were halted after the High Court ruling on the ban, but police have resumed detaining activists while the Court of Appeal considers the government’s appeal.
