Key Takeaways
- Four Palestine Action activists were given lengthy prison terms for damaging equipment at an Elbit Systems UK factory in 2024.
- Judge Mr Justice Johnson imposed a “terrorist connection” finding under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act, which lengthens the custodial portion of their sentences and adds licence and terrorist‑notification requirements.
- Charlotte Head and Leona Kamio each received five years; Fatema Rajwani received four years and eight months; Samuel Corner received seven years and eight months for also inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police officer.
- The prosecution argued the attack was intended to intimidate the government and advance a political cause, while the defence warned the ruling risks criminalising peaceful protest and sets a dangerous precedent for groups like the suffragettes or Greenham Common activists.
- Outside the court, about 500 protesters demonstrated in support of the activists, and more than 70 people were arrested for alleged support of Palestine Action, which remains proscribed under the Terrorism Act pending a Court of Appeal decision.
Background of the Incident
In 2024 a coordinated break‑in occurred at the Elbit Systems UK site in Gloucestershire, a subsidiary of the Israeli defence contractor that manufactures drones and other military equipment. Four members of the direct‑action group Palestine Action—Charlotte Head (30), Leona Kamio (30), Fatema Rajwani (21) and Samuel Corner (23)—drove a prison van through the factory’s perimeter gates and proceeded to smash equipment, causing extensive damage to drones, unmanned aerial vehicles and other military assets. The activists stated that their motive was to disrupt the production of weapons they believed were being used in the Gaza conflict.
Extent of the Damage
A prosecution‑commissioned report detailed that the raid caused roughly £1.2 million of damage. This figure included £395,056 of harm to six units within an unnamed drone system, as well as damage to additional unmanned aerial vehicles and 41 other military assets. The destruction rendered a significant portion of the site’s output temporarily inoperable and highlighted the activists’ intent to impede the supply chain of weapons deemed controversial by the protest movement.
Sentencing Outcomes
At Woolwich Crown Court, Mr Justice Johnson handed down custodial sentences reflecting both the criminal damage and, in one case, an assault charge. Charlotte Head and Leona Kamio each received five years’ imprisonment. Fatema Rajwani was sentenced to four years and eight months. Samuel Corner, who was additionally convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent for striking Sergeant Kate Evans with a sledgehammer, received the longest term: seven years and eight months. All four defendants will serve an extra year on licence following release and will be subject to 15 years of terrorist‑notification obligations.
Judge’s Reasoning and the Terrorist Connection Finding
Before announcing the sentences, Judge Johnson declared that he was “sure” each defendant’s offence involved serious property damage, was designed to intimidate the UK government and a segment of the public (Elbit employees and affiliated businesses), and was undertaken to advance a political or ideological cause. Consequently, he applied Section 69 of the Sentencing Act, which permits a judge to find a “terrorist connection” when the crime is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public for a political, ideological, religious or racial motive. This finding triggered the requirement that the defendants serve at least two‑thirds of their sentences in custody before eligibility for release, and it attached the lengthy licence and notification periods.
Defence Arguments Against the Terrorist Label
The defence teams vigorously contested the terrorist connection finding. Rajiv Menon KC, representing Charlotte Head, described the prosecution’s move as unprecedented for a non‑violent offence and warned it constituted “an invitation to chilling, creeping authoritarianism that undermines the very fabric of our society.” Mira Hammad KC, for Leona Kamio, noted that although the suspects had initially been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, no terrorism charges were brought, indicating the Crown had doubted a jury would uphold such a charge; therefore, using Section 69 to enhance the sentence was improper. Tom Wainwright KC, acting for Samuel Corner, argued that labelling the activists as terrorists would similarly condemn historic peaceful movements such as the suffragettes, the Greenham Common women’s camp, and the Trident Ploughshares anti‑nuclear group, asserting that sentencing someone for a more serious offence they were not convicted of is fundamentally unjust.
Impact on the Victim and Public Reaction
Sergeant Kate Evans delivered a moving victim‑personal statement, describing how the attack left her with lasting physical and mental health effects, eroded her confidence, disrupted her career, and altered her family life. She said she no longer feels like the person she was before the incident. Outside the courtroom, roughly 500 demonstrators gathered, many holding placards proclaiming “Saving lives is not terrorism. I support Palestine Action.” More than 70 individuals were arrested on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action, which remains a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act pending a Court of Appeal judgment on the lawfulness of that ban scheduled for the following Monday.
Broader Implications
The case raises significant questions about the boundary between lawful protest and conduct that the state may deem terrorist‑linked. By applying a terrorism‑related sentencing enhancement to a property‑damage offence, the judgment potentially expands the scope of Section 69 beyond traditional violent terrorism, prompting concerns among civil‑rights advocates about the chilling effect on dissent. Conversely, the prosecution and the judge view the activists’ actions as a calculated attempt to disrupt a defence contractor perceived as complicit in overseas violence, justifying a strong legal response to protect public safety and critical infrastructure. The upcoming appellate review of the proscription of Palestine Action will likely influence how similar cases are treated in the future.