Pro-Palestinian Protesters Found Not Guilty in Elbit Systems Case
In a courtroom at London’s Woolwich Crown Court, six pro-Palestinian activists were acquitted on Wednesday of the most serious charge against them—aggravated burglary—following a dramatic 2024 raid on a factory owned by Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems.
The prosecution had described a meticulously planned assault. In the early hours of August 6, 2024, a group used a former prison van to smash into the Bristol facility. Once inside, they deployed fireworks and smoke grenades against security, while others caused extensive damage with crowbars, hammers, and red paint, resulting in an estimated £1 million in losses.
Yet, after over 36 hours of deliberation, the jury found all six defendants—Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, and Jordan Devlin—not guilty of aggravated burglary. Three were also cleared of violent disorder. The jury could not reach verdicts on the remaining charges, including criminal damage and, in one case, grievous bodily harm against a police officer.
The Core of the Defense: A Claim of “Necessity”
The defendants did not dispute their actions. Instead, their defense rested on motivation. They argued they were driven to destroy weapons components to disrupt what they termed Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza, explicitly disavowing violence against people. Their claim, in essence, was one of necessity—that their criminal act was justified to prevent a greater harm.
Judge Jeremy Johnson had directed the jury to decide the case solely on the evidence, not on personal views about the war or Palestine Action, the now-banned group behind the protest. The mixed verdict suggests the jury wrestled deeply with separating the defendants’ admitted deeds from their stated intent.
The Context of a Banned Group
The trial occurred under a charged political backdrop. The British government had proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization in July 2024, nearly a year after the Elbit incident. This designation made membership in the group itself a crime, adding a layer of gravity to the proceedings.
What the Acquittal Signifies
The not-guilty verdicts on the top charge represent a significant, if partial, legal victory for the activists. Their emotional reaction in the dock—hugging and waving to cheering supporters—highlighted the trial’s symbolic weight as much as its legal consequences.
For critics, the outcome may raise concerns about the limits of lawful protest and the potential for property destruction to be excused by political conviction. For supporters, it is a validation that a jury could reject the state’s most severe characterization of their actions, even if not absolving them of all alleged wrongdoing.
Prosecutors now face a decision on whether to seek a retrial for the charges where the jury deadlocked. Regardless of that choice, Wednesday’s verdict has already made a powerful statement. It underscores how courtrooms can become arenas where the fierce moral and political debates dividing society are put to a stark, legal test—with a jury left to draw the line between criminal damage and a desperate act of conscience.
Also Read:
US Envoy Witkoff Set to Meet Israeli Leaders During Israel Visit
British Killer Known as Suffolk Strangler Pleads Guilty in Cold Case
