Filton 6 trial jury verdict: four guilty of criminal damage, two cleared

In a decidedly dispiriting verdict delivered by the jury today in the retrial of the six Palestine Action activists accused of causing criminal damage to property in their direct action against an Elbit Systems weapons factory in Bristol in August 2024, two of the defendants — Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin — were found not guilty, while the other four — Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Zainab — were found guilty.

Regarding the separate charge against Samuel Corner, of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, the jury refused to find him guilty, but found him guilty of the lesser charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

As I explained in a recent post about the trial, it was “hugely significant in terms of the right to protest, and the right to take direct action against a genocide, which, in the past, both judges and juries have recognized as a valid mitigating factor.”

This happened “most noticeably in 1996, when four women activists {Seeds of Hope] damaged a BAE Hawk warplane, to prevent it being used in the Indonesian government’s genocide in East Timor.” At their trial, they explained that they “were acting to prevent British Aerospace and the British Government from aiding and abetting genocide”, and “were found not guilty after a jury described their actions as reasonable under the Genocide Act of 1969.”

Of particular relevance to this case is when, in 2009, activists in Brighton caused damage to an arms factory supplying weapons to Israel, and the defendants were all found not guilty at their trial in 2010, having successfully demonstrated to the jury that, “by supplying weapons to the Israeli air force, the factory was implicated in violations of international law.”

What has changed in the years since? I would suggest that a rabid pro-Israeli government and rabid media reporting has changed, as has an increase in a combative, anti-democratic stance taken by some judges, in preventing — as in this case, and in some climate action cases — defendants from giving their moral and ethical reasons for the actions that they took. Five of the six Filton 6 defendants chose to make their own closing statements, to bypass the ban, but that shouldn’t have to happen in a fair and just society in which causing criminal damage because of one’s conscience can be seen as reasonable.

Also responsible is the incubator of social media, which has been filled with calls for vengeance and blatant lies about the extent of the injuries suffered by a police officer, who was attacked by Samuel Corner because he heard screaming and feared that one of his colleagues was being attacked.

The four guilty defendants have been denied bail, and have been remanded in custody ahead of sentencing on June 12. The maximum sentence for criminal damage is 10 years' imprisonment for damage exceeding £5,000, although it tends to be lower for first offences.

That sentencing will be taking place at all is, however, a low point for justice today, when so many of us can see all too clearly that the evil in this case is Elbit Systems, and their part in the even greater evil that is Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, and that these young people were both principled and brave.

The jury had deliberated for over two days prior to reaching their verdicts, as Real Media, which has been following the trial assiduously, reported, noting that they “began their deliberation at around 10.30 last Thursday morning”, and, in the afternoon, “asked for some clarifications about the number of security guards who were present, who was controlling video cameras that had failed to capture alleged violence by those guards, and why the court had excluded an Elbit security manager witness who has been labelled ‘Witness Alpha.’”

They continued deliberating on Friday, and today, after the Bank Holiday, asked before lunch “whether the court would accept partial verdicts and/or majority verdicts.” Real Media added that, “After discussion with counsel, the judge told jurors that they must reach verdicts on all the counts, and to continue to try to reach unanimous verdicts, but that he would accept majority verdicts of 10 or more if they couldn’t agree.”