Outrage as activists who damaged Israeli drones face being sentenced as ‘terrorists’

Martin Shipton

A veteran anti-war activist has warned that a case in which four activists face lengthy jail sentences as terrorists for damaging drones used by Israel in its Gaza genocide represents a fundamental attack on the right to protest against war crimes.

The four were convicted of criminal damage at the Filton, Bristol plant of Israeli-owned weapons company Elbit Systems and are due to be sentenced in June 2026.

One of the four is Leona Kamio, 30 – known as Ellie – whose mother Emma Kamio lives at Pennard, Gower.

Anti-war activist Angie Zelter, from Knucklas in Powys, who has previously been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, said: “This case is of the utmost importance for the general public to be aware of. Many of us locally have been active in trying to stop the export of arms going to Israel to be used in the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. We may well be trapped in the same kind of authoritarian machinations of the judiciary that is being corrupted by Israeli pressures on our legal system.”

For the first time in British history, a court will seek to sentence direct action protesters as terrorists even though they were not convicted of terror charges, and even though the jury was not informed that they would be sentenced as terrorists.

Reporting restrictions that were in place to prevent this from being reported have now been lifted lifted by a judge at Woolwich Crown Court, where their trial took place.

The four defendants from the so-called Filton 24 were convicted of damaging Israeli quadcopter drones inside Elbit System’s Bristol research and development hub. Although the action took place long before Palestine Action was proscribed, the court will seek to add a “terrorism connection” at sentencing.

A court order has also lifted a ban on restrictions that led to five of the six defence barristers leaving the trial prior to closing speeches.

Mr Justice Johnson banned the barristers from speaking to the jury about “Elbit’s activities in manufacturing weapons and supplying them to Israel”; “The nature of the property that the defendants damaged or destroyed”; “The defendants’ beliefs that weapons and other technology at Elbit’s factory would be used to kill or injure others, including children”. The judge also directed that the barristers must not “inform the jury … that a judge may not direct a jury to convict”, even though such is an uncontroversial statement concerning the respective roles of judge and jury.

The “terrorism connection” under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is an aggravating factor applied at sentencing, not a charge. Judge Johnson kept secret from the jury that this would apply, meaning jurors who convicted the defendants did so without knowing that this criminal damage conviction would likely be treated as terrorism at sentencing.

‘Terrorist connection’

Judge Johnson ruled there appears to be a “terrorist connection” because activists were influencing the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. World-leading experts and the International Criminal Court – as well as millions of people across the world – recognise that Israel is committing genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The defendants have already spent 18 months in prison on remand – equivalent to nearly four years under sentencing guidelines, the upper limit for criminal damage. But with a “terrorist connection”, sentences can be aggravated and defendants must serve their whole sentence unless a parole board – satisfied they are “reformed” and rescind their beliefs – approves release after two-thirds.

This may see activists denied parole unless they renounce their opposition to Israel’s actions, placing them under extreme duress. Upon release, they could be licensed as terrorists for up to 15 years, requiring them to register any new device, bank account, email, or relationship with police. Any mistake could mean five years back in prison.

Their supporters argue that a conscientious motive – in this case, acting to stop a genocide – under normal legal principles would be a mitigating factor. Here, it is being turned against them.

Banned

All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the judge before evidence was heard, meaning the defendants weren’t allowed to argue that their actions were legally justified as they acted to save lives and prevent a greater crime. He also barred defendants from telling the jury about their motivations for taking action, their emotional reactions to the massacres of Palestinians or the illegality of Israel’s actions.

In the UK, juries hold the right to return a not guilty verdict according to their own conscience. In this trial, the judge prevented the defendants from informing the jury of this right, and from stating that the judge could not compel them to convict. Protestors holding placards stating the right of juries to acquit according to their conscience were arrested outside the court.

Following the guilty verdicts, the prosecution did not apply to revoke bail. Nevertheless, in a highly unusual move, Justice Johnson revoked bail immediately and returned the defendants to prison, where they remain ahead of sentencing on June 12.

‘Miscarriage of justice’

A spokesperson for the campaign group 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 a ‘terrorist’ without having been convicted of terror charges and with this having been kept secret from the jury.

“This grave miscarriage of justice should be a matter of public outrage. Had the jury not been deliberately kept in the dark about this secret terrorist sentencing, the jury may not have chosen to convict. The judge also forbade the defendants and their barristers from informing the jury of their right to acquit on the basis of conscience.

“It is even more appalling that the first time this is happening in British history is to sentence protesters as terrorists for influencing the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons during a genocide.

“If this authoritarian and insidious precedent goes unchallenged, it will allow countless more protesters to be tried for an ordinary offence, but secretly sentenced as terrorists, without juries knowing this when they convict. When judges ban the word ‘genocide’ from court and manipulate verdicts behind juries’ backs, we are witnessing a truly authoritarian abuse of power, one which has everything to do with protecting Israel’s arms trade.”