By Home Affairs Correspondent
London, (The Muslim News): Campaigners are urging supporters from across the UK to gather outside Woolwich Crown Court on June 12 from 10 am to 5 pm, where four members of the Filton25 group face sentencing in a case supporters say could fundamentally reshape the treatment of political protest in Britain. Although convicted only of criminal damage for dismantling Israeli military equipment at an Elbit Systems UK facility, the defendants could become the first direct-action protesters in British legal history to be sentenced as terrorists following a court ruling that was never disclosed to the jury.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were convicted on May 5, 2026, over an August 2024 action at Elbit Systems UK’s research and development hub in Filton, near Bristol.
The four defendants, who were associated with the pro-Palestinian direct-action network Palestine Action, were found guilty of criminal damage after entering the site and dismantling Israeli quadcopter drones and other military equipment.
The action took place nearly a year before Palestine Action was proscribed by the government.
Supporters are calling on members of the public, trade unionists, health workers and civil liberties campaigners to attend the sentencing hearing, warning that the case could establish a precedent whereby activists are prosecuted under ordinary criminal legislation but later sentenced under terrorism laws.
The controversy emerged on May 12 after reporting restrictions were lifted, allowing the media to reveal that Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson had ruled before the original trial that the offences appeared to have a “terrorist connection” under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
Jurors in both the original trial and the retrial were never informed of that ruling. Instead, they were asked only to determine whether the defendants were guilty of criminal damage.
Supporters argue that the defendants were effectively denied the opportunity to have a jury consider the full implications of a guilty verdict.
In a statement issued following the lifting of reporting restrictions, campaigners supporting the defendants said, “Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage.”
They added, “This is the first case where a court will try and sentence activists taking direct action as terrorists. If unchallenged, this means that masses of protestors can face one charge at court under ordinary criminal legislation, but later be sentenced as terrorists.”
At the centre of the dispute is the activists’ stated motivation for targeting the factory. Supporters maintain that the defendants acted to prevent weapons from being used in Gaza and sought to save lives by disrupting the production and supply of military equipment.
During a preparatory hearing in March 2025, defence lawyers argued that influencing a government was not the purpose of the action. According to the judge’s ruling, defence counsel Rajiv Menon KC argued that the activists’ aim was “to damage weapons and save lives”.
Johnson accepted that argument as one motivation but concluded that a terrorism connection could nevertheless exist.
In his ruling, he said, “On s1(1)(b) of the TA 2000, Rajiv Menon KC and others strongly argued that influencing government was not the purpose of the action – the purpose of the action was to damage weapons and save lives – I accept that this was one motivating factor – but that does not mean that another purpose was not to damage property to be made available to the Israeli government and thereby influence the Israeli government”. The judge’s reasoning was based on provisions within the Terrorism Act 2000 that include actions intended to influence a government and involving serious property damage.
Campaigners argue that the case represents a significant expansion of anti-terror legislation because the proposed terrorism designation is based solely on property damage rather than violence against individuals.
They also note that the legislation relies on the concept of “serious property damage”, a term that remains undefined in law.
The defendants and their supporters have further criticised restrictions imposed on the trial itself.
Before hearing the evidence, Johnson rejected a lawful-excuse defence and barred the defendants from arguing that their actions were justified because they sought to prevent greater harm.
The court also prohibited the activists from explaining their motivations to jurors.
In an April 21 ruling, Johnson stated that the defendants could not give evidence concerning: “their reasons for joining Palestine Action, their beliefs about Elbit’s supply of weapons to Israel for use in the war in Gaza, their views about the actions of Israel in Gaza or its legality or their purpose in causing damage to property at the factory beyond an intention to destroy it or any other evidence which is irrelevant to the issues which the jury are required to determine”.
Supporters say those restrictions meant jurors never heard evidence about the defendants’ concerns regarding civilian deaths in Gaza, their objections to Israel’s military actions, or their belief that Elbit’s products were being used in alleged violations of international law.
The activists eventually dismissed their legal teams and represented themselves during parts of the proceedings.
The retrial followed an earlier trial in which jurors failed to convict the defendants of any offence. Campaigners argue that the outcome demonstrates the significance of the restrictions imposed before the second trial.
They also point to subsequent contempt proceedings initiated against Menon after he informed jurors during the first trial that they could acquit according to their conscience.
Supporters have described the move as highly unusual and unprecedented.
Civil liberties groups have also expressed concern about the implications of the case.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said, “The public will be astonished to learn that in the British justice system a protester can now be convicted of criminal damage for disrupting an arms factory and then be sentenced as ‘terrorists’ without having been convicted of terror charges and with this having been kept secret from the jury.”
The organisation warned that the ruling could establish a dangerous precedent for future protest cases.
The four defendants have already spent approximately 18 months on remand awaiting trial. Supporters note that this period is broadly equivalent to several years under standard criminal damage sentencing guidelines.
If the court ultimately finds a terrorism connection, the consequences could be substantially more severe. The defendants would be required to serve their entire custodial sentence unless released by the Parole Board after completing at least two-thirds of their sentence. Any release would depend on the Board being satisfied that they had been reformed and had abandoned the beliefs associated with their offending.
Campaigners also warn that terrorism-related notification requirements could continue long after release, requiring former prisoners to register personal information with police and exposing them to further penalties for non-compliance.
For supporters, the June 12 sentencing hearing is about more than the fate of four defendants. They argue the outcome will help determine whether anti-terror powers can be used against future protesters whose actions target property rather than people, making the case a potentially defining moment for protest rights and political dissent in Britain.
[Feature photo: Charlotte Head, 29, Leona Kamio, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, are due to be sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on June 12 after being convicted of criminal damage in connection with an action at Elbit Systems UK’s Filton facility. (Credit: Free the Filton 25)]
