UK Court Jails 4 Palestine Action Activists for Elbit Raid, Citing £1.2 Million Terror Damage
Updated
Updated · Al Jazeera English · Jun 12
UK Court Jails 4 Palestine Action Activists for Elbit Raid, Citing £1.2 Million Terror Damage
3 articles · Updated · Al Jazeera English · Jun 12
Summary
Five- to eight-year prison terms were imposed on four Palestine Action activists over the August 2024 raid on Elbit Systems’ Bristol-area site, which the judge ruled had a terrorism connection.
Judge Jeremy Johnson said the action caused serious damage to Israeli weapons and was meant to influence the British government and intimidate Elbit, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer.
Samuel Corner, 23, received seven years and eight months after also being convicted of striking a police officer with a 7-pound sledgehammer, leaving her with a fractured spine; Charlotte Head and Leona Kamio got five years each, and Fatema Rajwani four years eight months.
About 500 supporters gathered outside court, where 72 people were arrested for displaying signs backing Palestine Action, a group banned last July under the Terrorism Act.
The ruling lands just before the High Court decides the government’s appeal over lifting that ban, under which support or membership can bring up to 14 years in prison.
A UK court jailed factory protesters as terrorists. Is this justice or a threat to dissent?
Does labeling UK activists as terrorists impact the global debate on the Israel-Palestine conflict?
"The Filton 4 and the Terrorism Label: Landmark 2026 Sentencing Sparks UK Civil Liberties Crisis"
Overview
The sentencing of the 'Filton 4' at Woolwich Crown Court on June 12, 2026, marked a turning point in the UK's approach to protest and terrorism laws. Over 200 people demonstrated outside the court, showing strong public support and concern about the unprecedented use of a 'terrorism connection' in the case. This response highlighted deep unease about how activism, especially related to Palestine Action's direct actions against Elbit Systems UK, is being redefined under terrorism legislation. The case sparked widespread debate about civil liberties, the definition of terrorism, and the future of protest rights in the UK.