How Palestine Action defendants ended up back in prison

The families and lawyers of four Palestine Action defendants found guilty on criminal damage charges have condemned the “cruel” decision to immediately send them back to prison pending sentencing.

Last Tuesday, after more than 14 hours of deliberations, Leona Kamio, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Fatema Rajwani, 21, and Charlotte Head, 29, were found unanimously guilty by jurors at Woolwich Crown Court in London on charges of criminal damage in connection with a raid on an Elbit Systems plant near Bristol on 6 August 2024.

Corner was acquitted of causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent for striking a police officer with a sledgehammer, but found guilty by a majority of 11 to one of the lower offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent.

Two other activists, Jordan Devlin, 31, and Zoe Rogers, 22, were acquitted of charges of criminal damage.

The defendants were all being retried for the offences after the jury in the initial trial cleared them of charges of aggravated burglary. In the previous trial, Rajwani, Devlin and Rogers were also found not guilty of violent disorder charges, while the jury did not return a verdict on the same charge for the other three defendants.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) subsequently dropped violent disorder charges against Head, Corner and Kamio.

The six had, prior to their initial acquittal, spent 18 months in prison - in excess of the UK’s standard pre-trial custody time limits. They were granted bail on 20 February, and have since not breached their conditions, according to their lawyers.

Following the convictions, Justice Johnson sent Kamio, Corner, Rajwani and Head back to prison on remand.

In his ruling, Johnson said there were “substantial grounds” to believe the defendants would “commit further offences”, as it was “absolutely clear” from their closing speeches that they continue to feel “morally justified and empowered to do what they did”.

Rajwani and Head sobbed in the dock as the ruling was read. 

Barrister Mira Hammad, who is representing Kamio, said that the evidential picture is no different from when the judge granted them bail following the initial trial in February.

She said that the defendants "stand to be sentenced on exactly the same basis as my lord was aware of when he granted bail".

"It's shocking that they have been remanded again," Barrister Audrey Cherryl Mogan, who represented Rogers, told Middle East Eye.

"Having been on bail they have not put even a toe out of line. He is remanding them on the basis that they would commit offences despite them being there every day, on time and clearly engaged in the process.

'Cruelty and spite'

“Having spent 18 months in prison without a single conviction, they’ve already served nearly the equivalent of a four-year sentence,” Clare Hinchcliffe, the mother of Zoe Rogers, told MEE outside Woolwich Crown Court on Tuesday.

"And yet they have been put on remand, back to prison to await sentencing. The cruelty of that and the spite of that just takes my breath away.

“It's how this trial has been throughout. It's been politically influenced, it's been unfair. There have been restrictions on what the jury is allowed to hear that I’m not even allowed to tell you.

“There has been everything thrown at them to secure these convictions, and the effect on the young people is criminal.”

In a post on X, Hinchcliffe said that Rogers found the result “devastating” and that she “sat in the courtroom and sobbed”.

Addressing reporters outside the court after the verdicts, Rogers said: “My co-defendants should be out here today," adding that she did not blame jurors for their verdicts, as information had been withheld from them throughout the trial.

Devlin said he had been acquitted despite admitting that he “had damaged drones, and that it was an honour”. 

He noted that missing security camera footage during the trial, including videos of him allegedly being struck in the face with a sledgehammer by a security guard during the raid, “has backfired and may have played a role” in his acquittal.

“It is a travesty of justice that my co-defendants aren’t with me,” he told reporters. “As the damage to Elbit weapons they’re accused of was to save Palestinian lives.”

Weapons, not fluffy toys

The defendants await sentencing on 12 June. 

In court after the verdicts, chief defence counsel Rajiv Menon KC argued that the process of determining the scope of the sentencing requires “clarity” about the figure for the value of the property they damaged.

He said that a claim made by an unnamed witness from Elbit Systems put this at £1m, but emphasised that sentencing could not be based on this figure, as the witness’s identity and a complete list of items damaged and their worth should be disclosed to the court.

“We’re talking about an Israeli weapons manufacturer complicit in genocide in the Middle East, and this must be assessed rather differently to a company that makes fluffy toys,” he said.

Judge says 'history of Middle East' irrelevant

The verdicts came as Menon faces contempt of court charges for delivering a closing speech during the first trial, which the judge said defied his directions.

Details of Menon's case have been widely reported after court restrictions were lifted.

Prior to the initial trial, Justice Johnson instructed jurors that their views on Israel's actions in Gaza were "irrelevant", and directed that the defendants "were not entitled to give evidence on their understanding of the background history of the Middle East and the reasons why they believed their conduct was lawful". 

He later directed lawyers that their closing speeches could not invite the jury to disregard the court's ruling or law, and barred them from reminding the jury of its right to acquit on conscience - known as the principle of “jury equity”.

In his closing remarks, Menon, who represented Head in both trials, read out an inscription on a plaque at the Old Bailey commemorating Bushell’s Case of 1670, which first “established the right of juries to give their verdicts according to their convictions”.

Menon told jurors that the defendants had been “restricted” when giving evidence about their knowledge of Elbit's role in Israel’s war in Gaza, and that it would be “ridiculous” for jurors to ignore that wider context and its impact on the defendants.

Justice Johnson said that the effect of Menon's speech "was to invite the jury to disregard my directions that they should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza, and emotion, to one side".

The case against Menon is pending a decision by the court of appeal following a challenge by his lawyers.

Michael Mansfield KC, a prominent human rights barrister who has worked alongside Menon on a number of cases, including relating to the Grenfell Tower fire and the Hillsborough disaster, told MEE that he is “very very concerned” about the proceedings against his colleague.

“I’ve been at the bar for well over 50 years, and I am unaware of any case where counsel has been accused of contempt of court,” he said. 

He noted that, even if nothing happens as a result of the proceedings, the allegation itself could undermine Menon’s reputation and his ability to do the job in future.

“In the past, what has happened, is it’ll be done after in private,” Mansfield said, explaining that judges usually deal with such matters internally, referring the issue to the Bar Council.

He further noted that the allegation risks having a chilling effect on barristers, saying: “I think people are extremely worried about the situation in which the bar is having to operate.”

"It is important to note that the prosecution of Rajiv for contempt has wider constitutional implications. We are extremely concerned about the chilling effect on the Bar of the state seeking to criminalise barristers for their representation of their clients," Garden Court Chambers said.

"Such action is bound to undermine the confidence of the public that those charged, particularly in political and controversial cases, can receive the committed representation that they would expect to be provided."

Banned topics

Towards the conclusion of the retrial, the defendants dropped their lawyers and made their closing speeches themselves.

Head told jurors in her closing comments that “after some decisions made by the court I no longer feel like they [the defence] are permitted to represent me in a way that does us all justice”.

“They are afraid of the power you hold as a jury,” Head told the court.

In her speech, Rogers noted that, throughout the three-week trial, jurors “might have noticed certain words have been blacklisted, that, until our speeches, the word ‘genocide’ hasn’t been said once”.

“It's almost as if topics of conversation have been banned,” Rogers said.

During the trial, a Section 14 order was imposed by London's Metropolitan Police to prevent demonstrations near the court. On 24 April, nine people were arrested for breaching it while holding signs reminding jurors of the principle of jury equity.

The arrests were conducted despite a high court ruling in April 2024 that found that a similar placard held by Trudi Warner “was informative” and “did not implore jurors to act or give an instruction”.