Pro-Palestine activists sentenced as terrorists over damage at Israeli arms factory in UK

Lead

A UK court has sentenced four activists from the Palestine Action group to prison terms ranging from five to eight years for a 2024 raid on an Israeli arms manufacturer's factory, with the judge ruling that the attack constituted a 'terrorist act' — a finding that has sparked criticism from human rights lawyers and supporters of the activists.

The sentences were handed down on Friday at Woolwich Crown Court in London by Mr Justice Johnson, who determined that the criminal damage caused during the August 2024 break-in at the Elbit Systems site in Filton, near Bristol, had a 'terrorism connection' under UK law. The ruling came despite the fact that the four defendants — Samuel Corner, 23, Charlotte Head, 30, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21 — were convicted by a jury only of criminal damage, not of any terrorism offence.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting on the case has been consistent across multiple outlets, with Al Jazeera and The Guardian both covering the sentencing and the judge's ruling. All sources agree on the core facts: the four activists were convicted of criminal damage, one was also found guilty of striking a police officer with a sledgehammer, and the judge ruled that the raid was a 'terrorist act' for sentencing purposes.

However, there are some discrepancies in the reported damage figures. Al Jazeera initially reported that the activists caused £1 million in damage, while The Guardian's later coverage cited a prosecution report estimating £1.2 million in damage, including to 41 military assets. The Guardian's report also noted that the damage included £395,056 to six units of an unnamed drone system.

All sources noted that Palestine Action was formally proscribed as a 'terrorist' organisation by the UK parliament in July 2025, a move that critics have argued conflates property damage with terrorism.

Key Claims

• The raid and convictions: The four activists were convicted of criminal damage for their role in the August 2024 raid on the Elbit Systems factory, during which they smashed drones and other equipment. Samuel Corner was additionally convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent for striking a police officer, Sgt Kate Evans, with a sledgehammer, leaving her with a fractured spine.

• The judge's ruling: Mr Justice Johnson ruled that the raid was a 'terrorist act' under section 69 of the Sentencing Act, stating that the damage was designed to intimidate the UK government and a section of the public, and was carried out to advance a political or ideological cause. He acknowledged that the defendants acted out of conscience, which he said would be taken into account in sentencing.

• The sentences: Corner was sentenced to seven years and eight months; Head, Kamio, and Rajwani each received five-year sentences. The judge described Corner's use of force against the police officer as 'extreme and gratuitous'.

• Damage estimates: Reports on the extent of the damage vary. Al Jazeera initially reported £1 million in damage, while The Guardian cited a prosecution report estimating £1.2 million, including damage to 41 military assets.

Perspectives

The court's perspective: The judge determined that the raid met the legal threshold for a 'terrorist connection' because it involved serious property damage, was intended to intimidate the government and Elbit employees, and was carried out for political or ideological purposes. The court also noted the severity of the violence used against the police officer.

The activists' and supporters' perspective: The Filton 25 Defence Committee, an NGO supporting the activists, argued that the four destroyed over 40 Israeli weapons, including drones used in attacks on Palestinians in Gaza, and that their direct action 'saved lives'. They called the ruling a 'serious miscarriage of justice' and said it would be appealed.

Legal experts' perspective: Michael Mansfield KC, a prominent human rights lawyer, and more than 50 other legal experts signed an open letter warning that sentencing the activists as terrorists, when the jury did not convict them of a terrorism offence, violates fundamental legal principles. Mansfield called it a 'constitutional threat', arguing that the defendants were not allowed to explain their motivation to the jury and that the state was 'elevating' the offences after the fact.

The UK government's perspective: The government's proscription of Palestine Action as a 'terrorist' organisation in July 2025 was a key factor in the case. The proscription, approved by parliament, placed the group in the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL, a move critics have argued is disproportionate for a group that has not committed violent acts.

Background and Context

Palestine Action, launched in July 2020, describes itself as a movement 'committed to ending global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime'. The group has used 'disruptive tactics' to target companies involved in manufacturing weapons for Israel, including Elbit Systems, Leonardo, Thales, and Teledyne. The August 2024 raid on the Elbit factory was part of a broader campaign to disrupt the production of weapons allegedly used in the Gaza conflict.

The case has drawn attention to the legal treatment of protest groups in the UK, with critics arguing that the use of terrorism legislation against non-violent activists sets a dangerous precedent. The defendants' lawyers have indicated that they will appeal the ruling.