*Reporting restrictions were lifted on 12th May 2026, meaning the press can now report on the terrorist connection ruling in connection to the six defendants who’ve been on trial*
Photos and videos are available and free to use, without credit
Four out of six defendants from the so-called ‘Filton24’ were convicted of criminal damage on Tuesday 5th May 2026 at Woolwich Crown Court, for damaging Israeli quadcopter drones inside Elbit’s research and development hub in Bristol. The action they were convicted for took place before the proscription of Palestine Action. However, the court will seek to add a ‘terror connection’ to their charges at sentencing.
The ‘Terrorist Connection’
Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage. Unknowingly the jury actually likely convicted four of them of terrorism. This is the first case where a court will try and sentence activists taking direct action as terrorists. If unchallenged, this means that masses of protestors can face one charge at court under ordinary criminal legislation, but later be sentenced as terrorists.
The use of terrorism legislation is based solely on property damage; the fact that Israeli drones and weapons were dismantled. Despite accusations of violent intent, which were defeated in court, such allegations have no bearing on the determination of a ‘terrorist connection’. The court will rely on the ‘serious property damage’ clause under s1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which remains legally undefined.
As well as the ‘serious property damage’ element, the court must find that the action was taken to influence the government or an ‘international governmental organisation’, under s1(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act. During a preparatory hearing in March 2025, the Judge ruled that there appears to be a ‘terrorist connection’ as the activists were influencing the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons.
Specially, during his ruling on the appearance of a ‘terrorist connection’, Judge Johnson said:
“On s1(1)(b) of the TA 2000, Rajiv Menon KC and others strongly argued that influencing government was not the purpose of the action – the purpose of the action was to damage weapons and save lives – I accept that this was one motivating factor – but that does not mean that another purpose was not to damage property to be made available to the Israeli government and thereby influence the Israeli government”.
The defendants have already spent 18 months on remand, which is the equivalent of a near 4 year prison sentence, the upper limit of a criminal damage conviction according to sentencing guidelines. However, if they are sentenced with a ‘terrorist connection’, their sentences will be aggravated, and they will have to serve their whole sentence in prison, unless a parole board approves their release after they spend two-thirds of their sentence. For them to be released by a parole board, they must be satisfied that the defendants are ‘reformed’ and rescind their beliefs. Upon release, they could be listed as terrorists for another 10-15 years, meaning any new device, bank account, email address, relationship, will have to be registered with the police for the rest of their life. If they make any mistake, they could be sent back to prison.
The “Stitch up” of the Re-trial
All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before he heard the evidence, 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 the 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.
Whilst juries always have a right to find defendants not guilty according to their conscience, the judge banned the defendants from telling the jury this right, or that the judge could not force them to convict. Protestors were also arrested outside the court who held placards regardy jury equity. These extreme restrictions led to the defendants dismissing their barristers, leaving them to self-represent and give their own closing speeches.
In the first trial, Rajiv Menon, who was representing Lottie Head, did make the jury aware that the judge could not force them to convict and the jury did not convict the defendants of a single offence, including criminal damage. In response, Judge Johnson issued contempt of court proceedings against Rajiv Menon, after he successfully defended his pro-Palestine client. It is believed that no barrister in British legal history has ever faced contempt of court for the contents of their closing speech.
References
‘Terrorist Connection’: Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/69
Definition of Terrorism: Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1
Repercussions of being sentenced as a ‘terrorist’:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/247A
Fact sheet on sentencing ‘terrorists’:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60227137e90e0711ce41370b/cts-bill-factsheetfurther-changes-sentencing-jan-2021.pdf
Further Reading
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/government-israel-head-woolwich-crown-court-b1282245.html
MOBILISE AT WOOLWICH COURT COURT JUNE 12TH 10AM-5PM