Full story
Elbit Bristol trial outcome
After a 12-week trial at Woolwich Crown Court, a jury acquitted all six defendants of the principal charge of aggravated burglary while returning mixed or no verdicts on related counts.
Jurors cleared Fatema Rajwani, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin of violent disorder.
They failed to reach verdicts on some criminal damage and violent disorder counts and on a grievous bodily harm charge against Samuel Corner; five defendants were granted bail while Corner remains remanded.
Supporters celebrated outside the court and about 100 people gathered to mark the releases.
Protest trial summary
Trial evidence and argument centred on deliberate property damage, disputed intent to harm people, and body-worn footage shown to jurors.
Prosecutors told the court the group intended to shut Elbit down and suggested they were prepared to injure anyone who tried to stop them, citing footage of guards being sworn at and struck.
Defence lawyers acknowledged damage to drones and equipment but argued the activists acted from conscience and compared their actions to historic protest traditions.
Some defendants admitted entering the site and using tools including sledgehammers, which they said were meant to disable weapons not harm staff.
Jurors deliberated for more than 36 hours before returning the mixed verdicts.
Verdict reactions and implications
Reactions to the verdict varied sharply across different types of outlets.
“Supporters and civil‑liberties groups said the acquittals dealt a major blow to the government’s bid to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, pointing to a recently declassified UK intelligence assessment that much of the group’s activity would not meet the Act’s terrorism definition.”
Campaign groups and alternative outlets called the acquittals a vindication of conscience-driven direct action and a rebuke to proscription.
Some mainstream and local reports emphasised procedural points and highlighted the possibility of a retrial.
Supporters and advocacy groups hailed the juries' decisions as a 'huge victory', a vindication of jury independence, and grounds to challenge the ban on Palestine Action.
Critics and prosecutors stressed the unresolved charges and said they were considering retrials.
The judge repeatedly told jurors that the later proscription of Palestine Action was irrelevant to their deliberations.
Legal and political fallout
Legal uncertainty remains as prosecutors consider retrials on counts where jurors were deadlocked.
Campaigners say the verdict supports challenges to the proscription and calls for compensation, bail for other defendants and repeal of laws restricting protests.
The trial was politically charged in other ways, with supporters staging hunger strikes while on remand.
The government reportedly decided not to award a £2 billion contract to an Elbit subsidiary amid protests.
Jurors were told to ignore jury equity posters that appeared during deliberations.
Observers note ambiguity over whether direct action of this kind meets the legal test for terrorism, with some sources pointing to intelligence assessments and others stressing that proscription is a separate legal process.