- Six Palestine Action activists face a retrial after being acquitted in February following over a year in prison. If convicted, the six Palestine Action activists and 18 others will likely be sentenced as terrorists, facing long prison terms.
- The jury has not been notified about the ‘terrorist’ designation, and the British media cannot report this information under a court order. Activists will also be prohibited from telling jurors how their efforts sought to impede the Gaza genocide.
- The prosecution followed a meeting between government officials and counter-terror officers, where designating Palestine Action as terrorists was discussed. Those officials admitted the group’s activities were “mostly confined to criminal damage,” not terrorism.
- By falsely alleging Palestine Action deliberately targeted people with violent acts, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper committed contempt of court – but a court order prohibits British media from reporting this. UK outlets are also barred from telling the public that Palestine Action’s lawyer, Rajiv Menon, faces contempt of court proceedings for reminding jurors of their rights.
- Under normal circumstances, the defendants would face a maximum of four years if convicted, and serve less than half their sentences. Under the draconian terror designation — which jurors have not been notified of — the activists could spend as many as eight years in prison. Their release would have to be approved by a dedicated board for terror cases.
A retrial of six Palestine Action (PA) activists acquitted of aggravated burglary in February will begin this April 13. Having failed to secure convictions during the last round, the prosecution is colluding with a biased judge to stack the deck against the defendants before proceedings even begin. Known as the Filton Six, their names are Samuel Corner, Jordan Devlin, Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, and Zoe Rogers.
From 2020 until its 2025 proscription, Palestine Action was a thorn in the side of the British wing of Israel’s global ‘defense’ matrix. The factories and headquarters of the Israeli state weapons company, Elbit Systems, were frequently targeted for destruction by the group. With Elbit incurring millions in damage as it was repeatedly forced to cease production, it appealed to the British state, which began conspiring with the weapons manufacturer to crack down on the activists.
The six Palestine Action defendants in the upcoming trial are not yet being publicly accused of terrorist crimes, and will be tried collectively for criminal damage, with one facing separate charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. But if they are found guilty, Judge Jeremy Johnson has been granted the authority to decide unilaterally whether they should be sentenced as terrorists. Having previously represented MI6 and the British police, Johnson has charged Palestine Action’s lawyer with contempt of court for successfully defending his clients.
Johnson was appointed to preside over the case after the previous justice was dropped for granting a Filton defendant bail in March 2025. Intensive restrictions imposed on the media by the British state have prevented the public from learning about the shocking dismissal of the first judge in the case.
British media has also been blocked from reporting that the new judge, Johnson, refused to dismiss the prosecution despite prejudicial statements made about the case by government officials. The most notable intervention came from Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who made numerous statements falsely linking the group to terrorism even after she was reportedly warned by British state lawyers not to comment on the Filton trial.
Furthermore, court-imposed restrictions will prohibit what the six defendants can say about the crimes of which they are accused. Expressly forbidden from informing jurors about their motivations for crippling a core component of Israel’s international killing machine, defendants will be deprived of a major prong of their legal strategy. In past trials, activists have successfully argued their alleged offenses were necessary to prevent far more serious crimes being perpetrated by Israel.
Defendants in the Filton case will also be barred from mentioning that their actions are to be treated as terrorism offenses. Despite not being charged with any crimes falling under that category, they were refused bail and left to rot in prison for 15-18 months — far in excess of the six-month standard limit. In violation of prison guidelines, their contact with the outside world was severely restricted, leading several activists to go on hunger strike. Conditions in jail were so onerous that one defendant attempted to commit suicide to escape.
Palestine Action recently learned that the unprecedented decision to treat Filton as a terrorism case was taken after a secret June 2024 meeting between government officials and senior counter-terror officers. During the meeting, national security operatives discussed designating Palestine Action as a terrorist faction, while mulling “the resource implications” of the move for counter-terror cops. The decision was made even as officials openly acknowledged that “PA’s previous activities… very rarely involve offences against the person and are mostly confined to criminal damage investigations.”
Prosecution disclosures made during the first Filton trial raise the obvious question of whether the entire case was transformed into a terrorism prosecution in order to place Palestine Action on par with Al Qaeda and ISIS. The independent British news outlet Declassified UK has revealed that behind closed doors, senior government officials and MI5 admitted that there was “no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed” as terrorists “due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property.”
The British state has a great deal riding on the case. After Palestine Action was formally proscribed as a terror group in July 2025, countless citizens have been arrested for expressing solidarity with the group. However, PA cofounder Huda Ammori led a historic High Court action to overturn the ban, which was found unlawful this February. If the defendants in the Filton case are found guilty, their convictions are likely to be cited in the government’s pending appeal.
The first use of a “terrorism connection” charge
On August 6, 2024, six Palestine Action activists drove a repurposed prison van into an Elbit Systems compound in Filton, near Bristol, England. After breaching security fences, they entered the facility and reportedly inflicted around £1 million ($1.33 million) in property damage. Media coverage of the incident focused on violent confrontations between the activists and security staff and police, which dominated headlines in the UK for weeks.
Detained under the 2000 Terrorism Act, the activists were charged with criminal damage, violent disorder, and aggravated burglary — a crime that carries a potential life sentence.
The group which came to be known as the “Filton Six” were held in solitary confinement, where they were subject to repeated interrogations and deprived of phone calls to family, friends and lawyers. UN rapporteurs harshly condemned their treatment, arguing it constituted “enforced disappearance.” Their charges were ultimately upgraded with a “terrorism connection” under the 2020 Sentencing Act.
That legislation has now fallen entirely off the mainstream radar, but it had a seismic impact on British law. Previously, a “terrorism connection” could only be applied to very serious offenses such as attempted murder and hijacking. However, the 2020 Act permits prosecutors to apply the designation to any offense with a maximum sentence of over two years.
Consequently, a criminal damage conviction could result in a near decade-long jail term. Meanwhile, “serious property damage” remains completely undefined, giving police and prosecutors significant leeway to interpret the law.
This is the very first case in British history where a “terrorism connection” has been applied to lower level offenses under the 2020 Act. And it’s not the only highly unusual prosecution being pursued against Palestine Action members.
When armed counter-terror cops violently raided and arrested 18 more activists in connection with Filton, the defendants were charged with the same offenses under the controversial and archaic concept of “joint enterprise.” As such, they could be found guilty of serious crimes, even if they did not take an active role in their planning or execution.
Those 18 activists were remanded to prison until the initial six defendants were all acquitted by a jury in February 2026. The jury acquitted the defendants of aggravated burglary and violent disorder, while failing to reach a majority verdict on the other charges, and the trial ended with zero convictions.
Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service announced it would seek a retrial before it had even filed the paperwork to do so.
All defendants were released on bail pending retrial, save for Sam Corner, who remains charged with grievous bodily harm with intent against a police officer. For a year and eight months, he has been jailed on remand, mostly in Belmarsh Prison, a high security complex dubbed “Britain’s Gitmo.” His trial has been heavily complicated by mainstream media outlets and Israel advocates on social media, who have clamored for Corner to be convicted of attempted murder. A typical headline, published in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, declared unequivocally that Corner “broke [a] police officer’s back with [a] sledgehammer.”
Highly selective footage and still images of the purported attack have been circulated widely. However, a very different picture of events emerged at the Filton trial, often without the media or jurors present in court. An account of proceedings by filmmaker Rikki Blue indicates police and Elbit Systems security alike offered descriptions of events during the action that conflicted wildly with CCTV footage.
It was also only during the trial that Palestine Action’s defense lawyers were provided unedited images captured by body-worn police and security guard cameras which presented a version of events that severely undermined the prosecution’s narrative.
Elbit and police conceal evidence from Filton trial
As the trial proceeded, it emerged that a map of CCTV cameras within the Elbit facility provided by the firm was incomplete. Several cameras – specifically, those well-placed to record disputed incidents, including skirmishes between Actionists and police and company security – were not listed. Secret communications between Elbit, which produces surveillance systems used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and British police were released during the trial.
In one message, an anonymous Elbit representative warned that the “gaps and jumps” in the cherrypicked footage supplied to court by police presented a “huge opportunity” for Palestine Action’s defense. Unsurprisingly, Elbit and the Crown Prosecution Service resisted releasing the CCTV material in full.
Some footage revealed that an Elbit security guard had entered the facility armed with a whip, and instigated violent altercations with activists present. However, the jury was forbidden from viewing the missing video, or even being informed of its existence.
At the Filton trial, Corner testified how he had acted in a state of panic after being sprayed in the face with PAVA liquid. Similar to pepper spray, the prohibited substance – widely carried by British police – causes extreme pain, and leaves victims disoriented and unable to see clearly for several minutes. Having just witnessed an Elbit security guard strike a fellow Actionist in the face with the handle of a sledgehammer, he heard a female activist screaming after being tasered by police.
Corner believed she was being brutally assaulted by Elbit security. He testified he was completely unaware police – who did not announce themselves and wore similar uniforms to security guards – had entered the factory. He stated that acted solely in the defense of his associate, and never intended to use any weapon during the action against anyone, least of all a police officer.
At no point did British media report Corner’s account.
Throughout the trial, prosecutors and the court worked to prevent the defense from ever mentioning Elbit, or from discussing its role in facilitating the Gaza genocide. No witnesses from the Israeli company or its security firm, Minerva Elite, took the stand. Meanwhile, Judge Jeremy Johnson aggressively cajoled the jury into convicting all defendants.
As Corner was giving evidence, a juror passed a note to Johnson, asking if Palestine Action had been “performing life-saving action and were morally compelled to destroy weapons they believed were going to be used to kill civilians,” as this would amount to a “lawful excuse” justifying their acquittals. Johnson responded in the negative, and restated this position at the end of the trial.
In the end, however, the jury failed to reach a verdict on the charge against Corner for grievous bodily harm with intent. It was an extraordinary finding, given the obvious interference by Judge Johnson and the prosecution.
Palestine Action’s lawyer faces contempt of court for mounting effective defense
Despite the procedural constraints imposed on him by Judge Johnson, Filton Six lead defense counsel Rajiv Menon KC pursued lines of questioning throughout the trial which forced the issues of Elbit’s role in supporting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians into court. In his closing remarks, Menon took the opportunity to highlight Judge Johnson’s attempts to prevent jurors from hearing evidence. He went on to slam Johnson’s restriction of defenses jurors could consider, a move that gave the impression that the judge was ordering the jury to convict the Filton defendants.
“Not only is he not directing you to convict, but he’s also absolutely forbidden from doing so as a matter of law,” Menon reminded the jury, according to a transcript of his remarks reviewed by The Grayzone. “The law is crystal clear on this point. No judge in any criminal case is allowed to direct a jury to convict any defendant of any criminal charge, whatever the evidence might be. That is the law.”
Jurors were visibly moved by Menon’s speech. This rankled Judge Johnson, who went so far as to threaten to discharge the jury after the grueling six-week-long trial. While he did not make good on his threat, on February 18th, two weeks after jurors delivered their verdicts, Johnson announced at a pre-retrial hearing he intended to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Menon over his remarks.
This would be the first time a barrister has ever faced contempt of court for the contents of their closing speech. Menon now faces two years in prison for the high crime of reminding the jury of their centuries-old right to return verdicts without fear of punishment from the trial judge.
Judge Johnson was joined by UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in his legally questionable attempt to convict Palestine Action members as terrorists. Cooper sought to tie the Filton case to Palestine Action’s ban, and reported sub judice allegations against the defendants as confirmed crimes. Crown Prosecution Service lawyers purportedly warned Cooper not to mention the case at all, yet she ignored the advice. Legal experts believe her actions amount to contempt of court. Even Judge Johnson admitted to her transgressions at a pre-trial hearing.
In August 2025, weeks after Palestine Action was designated a terror group, Cooper defended the ban in an op-ed for The Observer which accused PA of an “escalating campaign” of “intimidation, violence, weapons, and serious injuries to individuals.” The Home Secretary repeatedly referenced the allegation of grievous bodily harm during the Filton action to strongly insinuate the activists had frequently perpetrated violence against human beings, and that these alleged actions justified the group’s proscription.
But this was false; Palestine Action had previously conducted hundreds of direct actions without ever harming a single person.
When announcing Palestine Action’s proscription, the Home Secretary mentioned Filton, but explicitly stated, “to avoid prejudicing future criminal trials, the Government will not comment on the specifics of these incidents.” Cooper’s distorted commentary for The Observer seemed explicitly designed to prejudice jurors, however.
If so, it would not have been the first time Britain’s Home Office had engaged in legally dubious tactics to slander Palestine Action, while concocting a bogus rationale for the group’s unlawful prohibition.
UK police collude with Israeli lobby to proscribe Palestine Action
On June 23 2025, the same day Cooper formally announced her intention to designate Palestine Action a terrorist group, The Times of London published an incendiary report claiming the protest group had secretly been receiving funding from “the Iranian regime, via proxies.”
Planted in the national security establishment’s favorite broadsheet, the article relied solely on the allegations of anonymous Home Office officials, with no direct quotes or evidence supplied. Authorities were simply said “to be investigating [Palestine Action’s] source of donations,” as “their objectives” were supposedly aligned with those of Tehran. The unsubstantiated, libelous headline claim was subsequently recycled by multiple mainstream outlets anyway.
British officials apparently felt they had no other option but to brazenly lie. A leaked March 2025 Foreign Office report explicitly advised against proscribing Palestine Action, citing a letter sent to Prime Minister Keir Starmer by UN experts in November 2024, arguing the use of counter-terror legislation against Palestine Action was “unjustified.” The UN had also raised concerns “about potential infringements of the fundamental rights of political prisoners and the treatment of activists” if they were tried as terrorists.
In May 2025, the British government published an ostensibly “independent” British government-commissioned report on “political violence and disruption.” While critical of Palestine Action, the report cautioned that “the consequences of proscription are severe and can entail both a lawful restriction of people’s rights to free expression and association.” It also stated Palestine Action’s activities did not meet the “rightly very high” bar for banning under the Terrorism Act.
Two years earlier, Britain’s then-Policing Minister Chris Philp had a secret meeting with high ranking police officers, government officials and Elbit representatives. Heavily redacted records of the rendezvous released under Freedom of Information law reveal that Philp received a background briefing clearly stating that Palestine Action “does not meet the threshold for proscription as they do not commit, participate in, prepare for, promote, encourage, or be concerned [sic] with acts of terrorism.”
The stakes are high
Even as British institutions concede that Palestine Action has never engaged in terrorist activity, the country’s courts are engaged in a devious process to convict activists of terrorist crimes. While the jurors will be told they are ruling on a criminal case, a judge who has demonstrated every intention of ruining the organization has been granted to latitude to sentence the defendants as terrorists. And the jurors have been blocked from knowing this.
If the jury fails to reach a majority verdict again on criminal damage, the Filton defendants cannot be prosecuted a third time. They will walk free, dealing a resounding blow to the Israeli killing machine, while legitimizing the strategy of direct protest action to remove Israeli weapons factories from British soil.
National security elites from London to Tel Aviv are desperate to prevent this from happening. They appear willing to disregard fundamental legal principles and protections to achieve their objectives.
On April 11, with the retrial two days away from commencing, Filton spokesperson Lisa Minerva Luxx was detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, returning to Britain.
With their last chance to deal a knockout blow to the activist group still within reach, British elites and their Israeli collaborators seem to have no intention of backing down.