Key Takeaways
- Four members of the banned pro‑Palestinian group Palestine Action were sentenced to prison terms ranging from four years eight months to seven years eight months for a 2024 raid on an Elbit Systems UK factory in Bristol that caused over £1 million in damage.
- Samuel Corner received the longest sentence after being convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police officer with a sledgehammer; the judge cited an “extreme and gratuitous” use of force.
- The judge ruled that the attack had a terrorism connection, which acted as an aggravating factor, while noting the defendants’ previously good character as a mitigating consideration.
- The raid was part of a broader campaign by Palestine Action to disrupt what it viewed as British complicity in Israeli war crimes, aiming to “dismantle drones and weaponry” destined for Gaza.
- Outside the courthouse, about 500 supporters protested, leading to the arrest of 107 people; the case coincides with a government appeal against a High Court ruling that had lifted the ban on Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Overview of the Case and Sentencing
On Friday, June 12 2026, Woolwich Crown Court handed down prison sentences to four British activists who participated in a August 2024 raid on the Elbit Systems UK facility in Bristol. Charlotte Head (30), Samuel Corner (23), Leona Kamio (30), and Fatema Zainab Rajwani (21) were members of the now‑banned direct‑action group Palestine Action. The judge, Jeremy Johnson, determined that the offence possessed a terrorism connection, which justified imposing longer custodial terms than would ordinarily apply for criminal damage alone.
Details of the Defendants’ Convictions
The quartet had previously been convicted of criminal damage at a retrial in May 2026 after an earlier jury failed to reach verdicts on those charges. Samuel Corner additionally faced a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm after striking a police officer, Sergeant Kate Evans, with a sledgehammer that fractured her spine. Corner was found guilty of both criminal damage and GBH, while Head, Kamio, and Rajwani were convicted solely of criminal damage. Two other alleged participants, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin, were acquitted of the criminal damage charge.
Judge’s Reasoning and the Terrorism Connection
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Johnson stressed that the attack was “designed to influence the UK government and also to intimidate a section of the public,” and that it was carried out “for the purpose of advancing an ideological or political cause.” He labelled the terrorism connection an aggravating factor, noting that the activists had planned a high‑level operation aimed at shutting down Elbit and ending what they perceived as British complicity in Israeli war crimes. However, he also acknowledged the defendants’ previously good character and lack of prior convictions as substantial mitigating circumstances.
Individual Sentences
Samuel Corner received the harshest penalty: seven years and eight months imprisonment, reflecting the combined convictions for criminal damage and GBH. Leona Kamio and Charlotte Head each received five years, while Fatema Zainab Rajwani was sentenced to four years and eight months. All four will serve an additional year on licence after release. The judge emphasized that Corner’s use of a sledgehammer constituted “extreme and gratuitous” force, and that his autism did not excuse the violence.
Nature of the August 2024 Raid
Wearing red boilersuits, the activists broke into the Elbit Systems UK site in Bristol, damaging computers, drones, and other equipment valued at more than £1 million. They clashed with on‑site security and responding police officers, during which Corner swung the sledgehammer that injured Sergeant Evans. The group stated that their objective was to “dismantle drones and weaponry” they believed would be used to kill Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, and to highlight what they viewed as British support for Israeli military actions.
Victim Impact Statement
Sergeant Kate Evans testified that she continued to suffer from the attack, experiencing disturbed sleep, panic, and distressing dreams. She described receiving abusive emails accusing her of working for “the Zionist occupation of Britain.” Her statement underscored the lasting emotional and physical toll the assault inflicted on law‑enforcement personnel tasked with protecting the site.
Public Reaction and Protests
Approximately 500 demonstrators gathered outside Woolwich Crown Court on the day of sentencing, voicing support for the four activists. Police reported that 107 of those protesters were arrested for showing support for Palestine Action, which remains a proscribed organization under UK law. The scene highlighted the polarising nature of the case, with activists framing the defendants as political prisoners and authorities stressing the need to deter violent direct action.
Legal Context: The Ban on Palestine Action
The raid was among the incidents that prompted the UK government to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization under the Terrorism Act 2000, a ban that took effect on July 5 2025. Membership or support for the group became punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. After the ban, Palestine Action challenged the decision in the High Court, which in February 2026 ruled the prohibition “disproportionate” and a “very significant” infringement on human rights, ordering its lift. The government has appealed that ruling, with a judgment expected on Monday, June 16 2026.
Broader Implications
The case sits at the intersection of anti‑war activism, counter‑terrorism legislation, and the right to protest. Supporters argue that the sentences criminalize legitimate political dissent and that the terrorism label is being stretched to cover non‑violent property damage. Conversely, authorities contend that the use of weapons, the intentional infliction of serious injury, and the aim to influence government policy justify treating the conduct as terrorism‑related. The outcome may influence how future direct‑action campaigns targeting defense contractors are investigated and prosecuted.
Conclusion
The sentencing of Head, Corner, Kamio, and Rajwani marks a significant moment in the UK’s handling of politically motivated attacks on defense industry sites. While the judge acknowledged the activists’ lack of prior convictions, he upheld that the terrorism connection warranted substantial custodial terms, especially for the violent act committed by Corner. As the government’s appeal against the High Court’s lifting of the Palestine Action ban looms, the case will likely continue to fuel debate over the limits of protest, the definition of terrorism, and the balance between public security and civil liberties in the United Kingdom.