Six activists associated with the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action are set to face a retrial on criminal damage charges stemming from a 2024 incident at a UK facility owned by Israeli defense company Elbit Systems. The announcement from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) follows a previous trial where the defendants were acquitted of aggravated burglary but jurors were unable to reach a verdict on other charges. This case highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding protests targeting companies linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and raises questions about the legal boundaries of direct action.
The six individuals – Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22 and Jordan Devlin, 31 – were initially accused of breaking into the Elbit Systems site near Bristol on August 6, 2024. Although cleared of the more serious charge of aggravated burglary on February 4, 2026, the jury could not deliver a decision on charges of criminal damage against all six, as well as allegations of violent disorder against Head, Corner, and Kamio. Corner as well faced an unresolved charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm. The retrial will address these remaining allegations, according to prosecutor Deanna Heer KC.
Details of the Original Case and Charges
The initial trial at Woolwich Crown Court revealed that the activists allegedly forced their way into the Elbit Systems facility as part of a protest against the company’s involvement in the production of weapons used by the Israeli military. Palestine Action has consistently claimed that Elbit Systems UK is involved in the manufacture and supply of weapons to the Israeli military – a claim the company strongly denies. The activists were also accused of violent disorder, with some facing the additional charge of grievous bodily harm.
During the original proceedings, Rajwani, Rogers, and Devlin were also acquitted of violent disorder. But, the inability of the jury to reach a consensus on the criminal damage charges and the other allegations prompted the CPS to seek a retrial. Prosecutor Heer stated the prosecution intends to pursue the retrial on “criminal damage against all defendants, the three defendants on the allegation of violent disorder, and with Mr Corner on the allegation of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.”
Broader Implications and Related Cases
The decision to pursue a retrial comes alongside the dropping of aggravated burglary charges against 18 other defendants who were also accused of involvement in the Elbit raid. The CPS stated that it had “reconsidered the sufficiency of the evidence” in those cases and would offer no evidence on the aggravated burglary count. This decision suggests a narrowing of the prosecution’s focus and a reassessment of the evidence available.
Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government earlier this month, meaning that supporting the group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. This designation has drawn criticism from civil liberties groups and pro-Palestinian activists, who argue it unduly restricts freedom of expression and the right to protest. The group has organized numerous demonstrations and direct actions targeting Elbit Systems and other companies perceived to be complicit in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
A previous incident, reported by the Jerusalem Post, involved a “meticulously planned assault” on the Elbit Systems UK facility in Bristol. Five individuals initially appeared in court in July 2025 accused of breaking into the facility, facing charges of aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder, as reported by the BBC.
What to Watch Next
The upcoming retrial is expected to draw significant attention from both supporters of Palestine Action and those concerned about the disruption of business operations and potential for violence during protests. The outcome of the retrial could have implications for future prosecutions of activists involved in similar direct action campaigns. The case also underscores the complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding protests targeting companies with links to international conflicts. The date for the retrial has not yet been set, but proceedings are expected to begin in the coming months.
What are your thoughts on the balance between the right to protest and the protection of private property? Share your views in the comments below, and please share this article with your network.
