According to the prosecution, once inside the facility the group, dressed in red overalls and armed with sledgehammers, axes, crowbars, fire-extinguishers filled with red paint, fireworks and makeshift weapons, vandalised equipment and property, including systems allegedly related to drone production.
Reports suggest the damage caused may have exceeded £1 million.
WATCH: The full video shows distressing scenes as the trespassers wield sledgehammers and deal harmful blows to Police responding to the alarms triggered by the activists.
Police arrived at the site in response to alarms and alleged criminal activity. According to court testimony, a physical confrontation ensued.
One police officer, Kate Evans, testified she was struck in the back with a sledgehammer while attempting to arrest an activist. She described feeling a violent shock, later confirmed by X-ray to be a fracture of her lumbar spine. She was unable to work for three months and reportedly struggled with basic tasks such as showering and dressing.
Another officer, Aaron Buxton, described being struck in the leg during the confrontation, causing significant pain and bruising.
Prosecutors argue the event was not a spontaneous protest, but a meticulously organised operation involving coordinated roles: one team to overwhelm security and police, another to inflict maximum damage.
Charges, legal status and defence
The six defendants, Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, Fatema Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, and Jordan Devlin, face charges of aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder. In addition, Samuel Corner is charged with grievous bodily harm in relation to the alleged attack on Sgt. Evans.
The defendants deny all charges. Evidence presented includes CCTV footage, police body-cam video, and footage from activists’ own devices.
While Palestine Action has since been proscribed under UK counterterrorism legislation in 2025, prosecutors at trial clarified that the formal designation does not directly affect the charges for this incident, which are non-terror offences.
Supporters of Palestine Action characterise the factory as part of the military-industrial supply chain allegedly used by Israel in military operations. They argue that direct action is a form of civil disobedience against ethical violations.
Critics, including police, prosecutors, and media voices, insist that this was not legitimate protest but a violent, organised break-in targeting both property and law-enforcement officers, crossing a line into serious criminality and putting lives at risk.
The case has reignited a broader public debate about at what point “direct action” becomes violent crime and how society should draw the line between protest rights and protection of life, property, and public safety.
The Gravity of the Situation
The events at the Elbit Systems site in Bristol go far beyond what is commonly understood as a peaceful demonstration. The use of a prison van to force entry, the weapons involved, and the injuries sustained, including a fractured spine for one police officer, all point to actions that, if judicially confirmed, constitute serious criminal offences.
At the same time, the case raises significant ethical and political questions about the boundaries of dissent, especially where protesters frame their actions as opposition to military-industrial involvement in foreign conflict.
Regardless of those wider debates, for public reporting, this is an armed break-in with violent confrontation, heavy property damage, and serious injury, not a standard street protest.
From Protest Rights to Criminal Courts: A National Crossroads, Felt in Wales Too
The trial stemming from the Filton factory break-in has become part of a wider UK conversation about what protest means in 2025, and how the law now draws its line. The right to protest is protected across the United Kingdom, including in Wales, but recent legislative changes and court rulings have expanded the state’s ability to intervene when dissent moves from peaceful disruption to violence, sabotage and injury.
While the defendants frame their actions as part of a politically motivated campaign against the arms trade, the court is examining conduct that goes beyond speech and symbolic protest, the deliberate breach of a secured defence industrial site and the use of heavy tools during a confrontation with responding officers.
The case lands in a legal climate reshaped by the Public Order Act 2023, which widened police powers where protests disrupt critical infrastructure or create “serious disruption,” and by recent appeals decisions clarifying that political motivation does not provide a lawful excuse for violent or destructive acts.
In Wales, similar tensions are playing out. Peace Action Wales recently staged protests at RAF Valley, calling for British military bodies to sever partnerships with arms manufacturers. Though these actions were peaceful, they reflect a broader unease over the country’s role in global conflicts and the ethics of arms exports, a debate amplified when protest cases involve injury, weapons and major damage.
The jury’s task, legally and symbolically, is to answer a question felt well beyond Bristol: when does protest cease to be protected dissent, and become prosecutable violence? The events at Elbit are now part of that national stress-test, one that could shape how future activism is policed, prosecuted and publicly understood, across both England and Wales.
Discover more from Carmarthenshire News Online
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
