Justice Denied: 7 injustices in the Filton 24 case

Background 

The Filton 24 are a group of direct actionists who were arrested and charged for targeting Elbit Systems - an Israeli arms manufacturer based in the UK - during the Gaza genocide.

They have been held on remand in various UK prisons since, far exceeding the six-month statutory pre-trial detention limit. Zoe Rogers, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Jordan Devlin, Samuel Corner, Charlotte ​“Lottie” Head and Ellie Kamio are the first six of the Filton 24 to stand trial, with the verdict expected imminently. 

What would ordinarily be treated as a criminal damage has, in the Filton 24 case, been repeatedly framed as a matter of “terrorism” by the state itself - despite no terrorism charges being brought. 

In fact, the alleged actions of the Filton 24 defendants preceded the proscription of the direct action group, Palestine Action, and was used to lay the groundwork for the ban. 

The Filton 24 have alleged that they have been denied the right to a fair trial, from being remanded well over the six-month custody time limit, to political interference from Elbit Systems, the Israeli Embassy and senior politicians.

The right to trial by jury requires a prohibition of direct or indirect pressure on juries to arrive at a certain verdict. The State has the greatest ability to exert this influence and there is evidence of such attempts as set out below.

1 - Unprecedented CPS press releases and the creation of a “terrorism” narrative

In August and November 2024, following the arrests and raids of the Filton activists by Counter Terrorism Policing, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) issued press releases suggesting that the Filton case had a terrorism connection. This was extraordinary. It is not standard CPS practice to publicly announce the possibility of an aggravating factor before it has been tested. By issuing these statements, the CPS effectively branded the case as terrorism-related in the public mind. 

2 - Executive overreach and the undermining of the rule of law

The Home Secretary wrote in the press that the CPS had assessed the case as having a terrorism connection. It amounts to a minister publicly endorsing and amplifying a contested prosecutorial position while the case was live, and the defendants had no opportunity to present their case.

Other senior politicians stated publicly and in Parliament that a police officer was attacked by a member of Palestine Action wielding a sledgehammer, before the trial had even begun. What was meant to be a matter for the jury to decide, was instead publicly adjudicated on by senior members of the British government.

3 - Real-world consequences of the “terrorism” label

The impact of this labelling has not been abstract. There are concrete consequences for defendants in custody.

Defendants have reportedly: lost prison jobs, been branded as inherently dangerous and had personal items such as kuffiyehs withheld. 

4 - Collective prejudice and guilt by association

The terrorism narrative is particularly damaging because it is being used to describe even defendants who were not part of the ‘red group’ i.e. those on site when the alleged actions occurred. Prejudicial publicity will be even more stark for these individuals who are effectively being evaluated on their mindset and association, which is the case for many of the defendants who are not accused of being present at the site. 

5 - Press releases as a tool to facilitate proscription, not justice

The CPS press releases helped create the conditions for the later proscription of Palestine Action. This concern is reinforced by a leaked Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) report, used in the proscription process, referencing the CPS’s supposed assessment of a terrorism connection.

6 - Pattern of political meetings 

A series of meetings, taken together, suggest sustained political, trade and foreign-state interest and interference, related to protests, Palestine Action and prosecutions. 

These include:

• Discussions between the Attorney General’s office and the Israeli Embassy, where protest activity was discussed. 
• Meetings between Kemi Badenoch when she was business secretary with Elbit Systems as well as with her Israeli counterparts promoting trade with Israel. 
• Representations by Elbit Systems to the policing minister following an unfavourable court outcome, pressing for renewed legal action.
• A referral of Palestine Action to police by a government minister over an “underground manual”. 
• The sharing of contact details for British counter-terrorism police and prosecutors with the Israeli Embassy by the Attorney General’s office a month after the first arrests in August.
• A meeting between the Home Office and Elbit Systems revealed through freedom of information requests.

7 - ‘Planted’ narratives

Reports suggest that narratives aimed at establishing links between Palestine Action and Iran were planted by an Israeli-linked PR firm that works with Elbit Systems. If true, this would mean planted media narratives were widely reported on and parroted by certain politicians.

The Filton trial demonstrates how the judicial process is vulnerable to being subverted for political ends. The concern is that the defendants will not be judged solely on the evidence before the court, but within an environment shaped by government pressure, foreign state interests and prejudicial publicity.