The Filton 6 Verdict and what it means for Palestine solidarity
On Wednesday 4th February, after 8 full days of deliberation, the jury have acquitted Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Ellie (Leona) Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin of the most serious charge, aggravated burglary. The jury did not convict Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner and Ellie Kamio of Violent Disorder and acquitted Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Togers and Jordan Devlin of the same charge.
The defendants were acquitted, or not convicted, of all offences levelled against them, including violent offences. Campaigners say this result is a “monumental victory” that has “vindicated” the defendants, who were smeared by government ministers as “violent criminals”.
Here, Justin Kenrick and Eva Schonveld consider the implications for the British government, for the judicial review and for the Palestine solidarity campaign.
Last month, I was talking to someone about the genocide in Gaza. He was soon blaming it on the Jews, and I had to stop him and explain that in our local Palestine solidarity group we have atheists, Christians, Muslims, Quakers and Jews, and that all the Jewish members deplore what the Israeli government is doing. My friend was taken aback but quickly agreed that we shouldn’t equate the Israeli government with Jewish people in general.
This individual meant well, but his response was unsurprising given the Starmer Government’s insistence that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. This equating of the Israeli government with Jewishness directly increases antisemitism, just as its mimicking of Reform’s anti-refugee (“island of strangers”) rhetoric directly increases support for Reform. Labour is not a block to Reform, it’s an open road to it.
Insisting that criticism of Israel is the same as antisemitism massively reduces the room for Jewish people to be able to distance themselves from the actions of the Israeli government, and massively increases the chances of people deciding that what Israel does is what all Jewish people support.
The Guardian too conflates criticism of those who staunchly support Israel’s genocide in Gaza with antisemitism (‘Jewish MP’s visit to school cancelled after opposition from pro-Palestine group’) by stressing the Jewishness of an MP rather than stressing that teachers are objecting to the presence of someone who is excusing the actions of a genocidal Israeli government. This massively increases the chances of people deciding that what Israel does is what all Jewish people support.
Likewise, the Uk government forcefully tries to equate protest against genocide with terrorism by proscribing ‘Palestine Action’, a peaceful direct-action group, and tries to convince people we need to lock up those who are trying to stop the genocide. Hundreds face trial for calling for the deproscription of Palestine Action.
In Edinburgh, we have sat peacefully for an hour holding placards saying “I oppose Genocide. I support Palestine Action”, and although the police have not disrupted our protest at the time, later they have come to our homes to arrest us. Dozens of us face court cases, accused of being supporters of terrorism. Our first trial will be March 18th.
Jury refuses to convict the Filton 6 of any crime
However, the Uk government has hit a roadblock in its attempt to convince people we need to lock up those who are trying to stop the genocide.
The jury in the Filton 6 trial has refused to convict any of the six Palestine Action defendants of any offence at all. This was despite the six being clear that they went into the Elbit systems factory intent on trying to destroy weapons being used by the Israeli state to commit genocide in Gaza. The Filton 6 were also clear that they had absolutely no intention to harm anyone, but that when security guards became violent, they tried to protect themselves, and the security guards’ violence led to people getting hurt.
“Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest arms manufacturer and provides 85 per cent of the weapons used by the Israeli military” (Garden Court Chambers)
The pressure on the jury to convict was intense. The British state had seemingly selectively allowed evidence to be presented to the public to back its case, and tried to make sure other evidence was concealed, echoing the way the proscription of Palestine Action was undertaken in an underhand way by (totally unnecessarily) including it in a House of Commons vote on the banning of two actual terrorist organisations.
In the same way, the judge in the Filton 6 case also seems to have tried to influence the jury by not allowing the defendants to present evidence on Elbit systems participation in genocide, and the British government’s complicity in that. Craig Murray writes that:
“One item produced by the prosecution as evidence was the notebook of Charlotte Head, on which she had written details from her training session with Palestine Action and of the proposed direct action against Elbit’s drone factory.”
“The first ten pages of her notes were about the Israeli weapons company Elbit, their footprint in the UK, their corporate structure and the weapons they manufacture, and the evidence of the use of their weaponry in the genocide in Gaza.”
“The jury was shown the notebook, but were specifically not allowed to see the first ten pages. Throughout the trial, anything that referred to the crimes of Elbit, their role in the mass killing and mutilation of women and children, and their cosy relationship with the British government, was excluded from the jury. The judge continually stopped the defence lawyers from asking or saying anything about who Elbit are or why their property was being attacked.”
Despite this attempt to stop the jury hearing about the context for the activists’ attempt to dismantle the weapons, the jury refused to convict any of the six of any crime.
The Press Release published by the ‘Filton 24 families and supporters’ points out that:
“Each of the defendants were arrested by counter-terrorism police and held on remand for 17 months before trial, after they broke into Elbit Systems’ Filton site. Once inside, they destroyed Israeli quadcopter drones, which have been used frequently to massacre Palestinians in Gaza. [See Video 1: Action Video]
“Aggravated burglary was by far the most serious charge faced by each of the defendants, carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison. The not guilty verdicts of aggravated burglary and failure to convict any of violent disorder means the jury did not accept the prosecution case that the defendants entered the Elbit weapons factory with the intention of using the items they carried as weapons, or threatened/used unlawful violence against Elbit’s security guards.
“Rather, it appears the jury agreed with the defence argument, that the defendants sole intention was to use the items, including sledgehammers, as tools to disarm Israeli weapons to “prevent violence”.
“Campaigners say the refusal to convict the defendants of criminal damage despite evidence demonstrating damage of Israeli weapons, shows that “the jury understood that it is not those who destroy Israeli weapons who are guilty, rather the guilty party is the one that deploys such weapons to commit genocide in Gaza”.”
Impact on judicial reviews in England and in Scotland:
Ever since the judge in the judicial review of the proscription in England was inexplicably removed and replaced by three others, there has been an expectation that it would side with the UK Government, and that the UK government was waiting for convictions in the Filton 6 case to then be able to publish its judgement, and have the upholding of the proscription justified by the convictions.
If that is right, there is no knowing when the judicial review in England will be published.
One commentator suggests that “the judicial review result could be delayed until Spring after Filton acquittals”, since “judicial reviews usually respond to major events that happen during a judgement being made that affect the case. This is usually by requesting further submissions from each side.”
However, there is nothing usual about our current situation and others suggest that the judicial review judgement will be released soon. Some suggest that might be because if it finds in favour of deproscription it can offer the UK government a way to climbdown from an untenable position of insisting that a peaceful direct action protest group is a terrorist organisation, or because the British government wants to double down on its position, or even because the judges themselves were – for their own reasons – waiting for the Filton 6 case to be heard before making their judgement public.
Whether the publication (or even the completion) of the judicial review in England is delayed or not, the judicial review in Scotland will proceed in Edinburgh on 17th and 18th March.
If the judicial review in Scotland is held in the same rational way that the hearing in Edinburgh was held to decide on whether to hold such a judicial review, then it is hard to see that review as deciding anything other than that the proscription of Palestine Action was wrong. That is, assuming they are not mesmerised by the big lie technique the Uk government has tried to pursue in denying there is a genocide, denying its complicity in the genocide, denying the morality behind those who object to the genocide, and trying to deny the full evidence from appearing in the court of public opinion and in the court of law.
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, explains where the Filton 6 verdict leaves the ban on Palestine Action. She writes that:
“Banning Palestine Action was justified by falsely claiming the group had committed three acts of “terrorism”. Now, those claims are completely falling apart:
- The first supposed “terror” attack was an action in 2022 in Thales, Glasgow, when five activists scaled the roof of the weapons factory. They were charged with breach of the peace. It was later exposed as never being considered terrorism by Police Scotland.
- The second was an action against Elbit’s weapons factory in Kent, where actionists allegedly caused over a £1million in damages. After Palestine Action was banned, the CPS dropped the most serious charge of ‘aggravated burglary’ in this case. It is yet to go to trial.
- The third was the Filton action. The first six to go on trial were acquitted by a jury of aggravated burglary and some counts of violent disorder. The jury did not convict any of them of any offences, showing they didn’t believe their actions were criminal.
“This has left the proscription case against Palestine Action in tatters. It is only a matter of time before the ban will be lifted.” [see thread here https://twitter-thread.com/t/2019451454050717852]
Defend our Juries
During the Filton 6 trial one juror asked Judge Johnson whether it would count as a lawful excuse if a defendant believed they were performing a life-saving action by destroying weapons used to kill civilians in an illegal genocide. Johnson said that that would not be a lawful excuse, but Rajiv Menon KC (one of the defence lawyers) reminded the jurors of their absolute right to acquit.
That absolute right is under attack by powerful interests, which is why Defend our Juries was formed. It began after a retired social worker (Trudi Ann Warner) was arrested for sitting with a placard outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The placard said: “Jurors you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience”. The extraordinary thing is that these are the very same words on a plaque inside the Royal Courts of Justice!
Another insane body-cam video from the Filton 6 trial showing the violent Elbit security guards at work.
This one shows guard Angelo Volante brandishing a sledgehammer, repeatedly screaming at acquitted defendants Fatema Zainab Rajwani and Charlotte Head to “get the fuck down,”… pic.twitter.com/NcWbOvNgEQ
— Asa Winstanley (@AsaWinstanley) February 6, 2026
The words commemorate a landmark case of 1670 when jurors acquitted two Quakers who had been charged with preaching to an unlawful assembly. They were acquitted despite the judge’s direction to find them guilty. The furious judge locked the jury up for two days and nights without food or drink. The jurors stood their ground and insisted on a verdict of not guilty. Shortly after this, the practice of punishing juries for verdicts unacceptable to the courts was abolished ‘forever’ [or until very recently].
Defend our Juries note that: “Over the last few years juries have repeatedly acquitted those taking nonviolent direct action to advance climate and racial justice. These verdicts are deeply embarrassing to the government and the arms and oil industries . . . who have tried to put a stop to it.”
As a result of this pressure from the powerful, “People have been banned from using the words ‘climate change’ in court and jailed just for defying that prohibition. People have been arrested and prosecuted for displaying posters stating the legal principle that juries can acquit as a matter of conscience. . . . people are now being jailed in increasing numbers for years for peaceful acts of conscience.”
In the midst of a prison crisis created by worsening inequality and the stranglehold of a billionaire-poisoned media and social media, juries are being told it would be criminal to consider the wider context, or their own conscience.
It would be ironic if the Tory then Labour attempt to crush juries and the right of ordinary citizens to hear the evidence and make up their own minds, led to a form of government where juries not politicians make the decisions.
The struggle goes on, but this is a spark of light in a very dark world. Great kudos to those jury members.
Thank you for that overview and excellent analysis of the proscription of Palestine Action.
There is one other factor that may help lead to the overturning of proscription. We do not know how much pressure was applied from Israeli lobby in US and US government via Mandelson between February 2025 when Mandelson was appointed and July 2025 when PA was proscribed. For Starmer to overturn proscription it would require him to perform a personal u turn. It looks inevitable that Starmer will go sooner rather than later so this may hasten overturning proscription depending on who succeeds Starmer.
This is another way the British state acts against the integration of a worldview by suppressing evidence of interactions (here between Elbit, Israel’s occupation forces, the inhabitants of Gaza and West Bank, and the worldwide resistance to genocide, and so on).
However, to understand why some Jewish groups support genocide and some Jewish groups oppose genocide, we have to look at the ideological history of Judaism, what led to the apartheid state in Israel, why some Christian groups support it, what major divisions in religions came about, why, and what worshipping a God of Genocide means in practice.
It’s worth reviewing what Judaism shares with the Christian Old Testament, here only a short chapter on many celebrated genocidal activities:
https://thebrickbible.com/legacy/judges/index.html
So, which strands of Judaism support an extreme form of racism (God’s chosen people ordered to commit genocide), which have a milder form of racism, and which are against? This will help clarify the picture much more helpfully than the individualistic ‘some Jews this, some Jews that, some Christians this, some Christians that, some Muslims this, some Muslims that’. Again, integrate facts, build a coherent worldview, continually test against perception, revise as necessary, anticipate being wrong (contrast with orthodox religion).
Remember that the British have designated Jewish groups as terrorists before now, sometimes on quite reasonable if partial grounds, and could do again. It isn’t a clear Zionist/non-Zionist distinction, though (see also Abrahamic Armageddonism). Further remember that labels are also abused as a way to shortcut mental integration processes. And that news pieces are often presented without crucial (eg historical) context precisely for that reason, too. And that some labels are curiously almost never currently applied (like ‘terrorism’ or ‘armageddonism’ to state activity) by some commentators (see also ‘genocide’ and ‘ecocide’ and as the article rightly mentions ‘climate change’).
For those in power, or those who want to seize power, the public must never join the dots.
There’s a lot here. I agree that the root of this is in the Abrahamic religious tradition which asserts that there is only one God and he belongs to ‘us’. It’s not a specifically Jewish thing. The idea that ‘God is in our side’ has a lot to answer for. It enables adherents to see ‘success’ in defeating and destroying ‘enemies’ as ‘God’s will”, as justification for whatever is necessary to achieve power.
However there is another strand to this, equally important and that is the legacy of the Roman ‘Empire in Europe. Those addicted to the pursuit of power over others by violence have been mesmerised by the ‘glory’ of the supposed ‘civilisation’ of Rome, all its engineering and military achievements. It was all built on violence and the assumption that might is right. Emperor Conbstantine adopted Christianity as the official religion because of this vision ‘In this sign, conquer’. It had nothing to did with Christ’s teaching. It was really about the power of self sacrifice demonstrated by the early Christian martyrs who were prepared to die for their faith.
The Roman legacy in Europe and now around the world is that conquest gives a right to rule. The so0-called Enlightenment of the 18th c just removed ‘God’ and replaced him with ‘rational self interest’. In other words, the world is meaningless and the only purpose in life is to struggle for domination. It created a hierarchy with the wealthiest, European males at the top, and bacteria at the bottom. And the whole structure defined by its ‘usefulness’ to those at the top. The entire world exists, it seems entirely for their pleasure. And as Nietzsche said, morality is for slaves.
Science has moved on. We can now see that this supposed hierarchy is nonsense. That an ecosystem is an interdependent system which cannot be centrally controlled,. That God does not choose one people over another or create a .’master race.’
Very well said. It all demonstrates that the rule of law does not and never has applied equally to all in ‘Britain’. But the Common Law still exists, and it is based on basic ethical principles which the state claims exemption from. Whether it’s Donald Trump, or Elon Musk, or the British Royal family, this sense of ‘entitlement’, of exceptionalism, of wealth and power being their own reward, is at the root of the problem we all face. The ‘Age of Enlightenment’ was and still is really the Age of Entitlement. It is a philosophy that underpins fascism, capitalism, colonialism, and all forms of authoritarianism. Which constantly have to bully and threaten everyone and everything to feed the fear it all depends on.
The UK is really a theocracy. Charles III rules (and he does) not by consent but by ‘Grace of God’. He is officially above the law and can give ‘crown immunity’ to whoever he pleases. He is also head of the established church and so claims moral authority. Orwell was quite right to point out that democracy and the rule of law are simply hollow lies and all claims to the contrary are just hypocrisy. Thank goodness it is all falling apart at last.
I have said for several decades now that we need to replace the House of Lords with one chosen at random like a jury. And that an elected house must elect individuals committed to representing constituents, before parties. In Scotland, the Claim of Right is still there. It’s time we stood up for it.
@John Wood, you could argue that reactionary forces mounted a Counter-Enlightenment to ensure that the original Enlightenment-style principles (including accept no authority) were successfully stymied in many cases. I think many of the Enlightenment arguments were worthwhile even if the conclusions were often fudged (which is why women did not become citizens in despite of all reason).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges
As a result of movements including what can roughly be called the Enlightenment, we got a much better model of hypocrisy, I would argue. And the Theory of Evolution among other insights, without which religious authority would have clung on longer. The idea communism of global science grew from Enlightenment notions of universality. And solidarity with Palestinians is based on the same platform: their suffering matters as much as ours would. But Enlightenment humanism stops too short in that regard, just like the theisms it challenged.
I agree that the British Empire is a theocracy (among other things, and a military dictatorship among other things) and that Crown immunities explode claims to the Rule of Law (to which nobody of note had apparently thought to append human rights here until Lord Bingham, one gathers).
As to what should replace our failing political system, first we should ask and answer the question: what is government for?
When this case was reported in our tame BBC there was no mention of the detail of the verdicts, specifically a refusal to convict. Unfortunately it may now be that those that run and organise trials will be more selective in who they call.
I am somewhat outspoken and a little radical in my views and for the last 60 years I have wanted to be called to Jury service. In the last year or so I was called to a small case in Dumbarton Sherriff court, one which was abandoned half way through on a technicallity and I believe will, now, never come to a conclusion. Are there any coincidences in there or just happenstance?
@Dougie Blackwood, I was told that philosophers, mathematicians, logicians are regularly rejected as jurors by the prosecution because they are assumed to have much higher thresholds for proof than general population. To a philosopher, doubt may be reasonable scepticism.
tis the sabbath & therefore time tae ging doun & chain up the swings
Unbelievable, the way the Engerlish state , their media , the police and the corrupt judges and courts are trying to manipulate court proceedings along with lawyers for Israeli’s,
I cannot believe the extent of the immorality of the journey judges and the manipulation.
How many prosecutions from the past , have used the banning of one sided information, being withheld from jurors . How many,
I am astounded.
So police Scotland are creeping about after the fact , picking off people for arrest out of view of media, and it isn’t being reported other than on social media , it’s the first I have heard of it from yourselves.
Sneaky bastard’s
lol, watch yersel wi the polis this time ae year, they huv thir quotas tae fill ye no
What an excellent article with all said in language I can understand perfectly. I wish I had been brave enough to sit with you as I felt confident enough to March.
In the light of current events I cannot understand how people who have sat in silent protest are later arrested and charged. A man born into the royal family is arrested questioned for a day is released but with no charges as yet for much more . Or am I wrong? It would seem we are living in a highly weighted system or again I might be misguided in my suspisions