THE FILTON TRIAL – INDEX to Real Media articles
Over the past couple of months, we have written more than 100,000 words – detailed daily reporting from this important trial. We want to thank everyone who helped with this mammoth task, including helpful and generous note-takers, and a very dedicated proof-reader. We also want to thank Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, who inspired us to do this with his kind encouragement and recognition of our work on the Whole Truth Five trial.
To help navigate through the several very long articles covering the Filton Six, we’ve created the handy index below.
WEEK ONE
Charges and background – brief outline
Jury selection – Questionnaire for the panel of jurors, and ‘views on the Middle East’ referenced by Mr Justice Johnson.
Prosecution opening notes – Day Two – after a second jury was sworn in, lead prosecution counsel Ms Deanna Heer KC gave an outline of the case against the six defendants.
Prosecution video evidence – Day Three – with the jury now down to the official 12, Ms Heer showed the court a prepared compilation of video evidence.
Queries over the video evidence – Day Four – the defence ask police witness DC Webber some questions about the video evidence and potential missing footage.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
Elbit security guard Nigel Shaw in the witness stand for the prosecution, but then under cross-examination from defence counsel, his evidence appears quite confused.
Elbit security guard Angelo Volante – the prosecution have to play him footage as he seemed confused over several points even before cross-examination.
Volante’s cross-examination the next day uncovered several more inconsistencies in the security guard’s statements and evidence, and raised issues of possible assault by this military and martial arts trained guard.
Elbit guard Patrick Luke also needs the prosecution to replay footage to correct his evidence. His defence cross-examination also reveals further inconsistencies in evidence.
WEEK TWO
The prosecution call their first police witness – PC Adam Buxton, and his interaction with, and evidence against Samuel Corner.
Buxton is cross-examined by defence counsel, during which he realises he may have misremembered some elements. Ms Heer calls him back to clarify a couple of points.
Next police witness is Acting Police Sergeant Kate Evans who suffered the alleged assault. Ms Heer took her through the incident and her injuries. There was a short cross-examination to follow.
PC Peter Adams was the next officer on the stand. He was the one who discharged his Taser twice. His cross-examination by defence counsel also revealed inconsistencies and selective evidence.
Uncontested written statements were read to the jury from the fourth security guard and other police officers.
Sequence of Events – this is a detailed timeline (not far short of a hundred pages) of prosecution evidence showing the alleged roles and actions of the six defendants in the lead-up to the Filton action. This is all material that the defence are not seeking to contest. Halfway through this, the court took a three-day break while some barristers had to deal with other hearings.
Sequence of Events continued after the break, and would normally be followed by any cross-examination of the police representative (PC Johns) who is verifying the timeline, but after legal representations, instead the prosecution move on for now.
Agreed Facts this is another long document for the jury – a couple of dozen pages – of further information not contested by the defence.
WEEK 3
Monday morning begins with legal arguments which take an hour and a half to discuss, and when the jury come in they are told they will hear the rest of the ‘Agreed Facts’, which include a wide range of evidence, among them planning documents, purchases, medical reports, and police interviews.
QUESTIONS TO THE POLICE
DC Johns (who was in the witness box throughout the sequence timeline, effectively verifying what was being read out) is then questioned by the defence about some of the content of the Cryptpad planning documents.
PC Sarah Grant takes the stand – she is the police ‘CCTV recovery officer’. Just prior to her evidence, the jury have been given new maps showing cameras not on the original documents.
The jury are sent home early after being told there are more legal matters to deal with.
PC Sarah Grant returns to the stand for cross-examination after the jury have been made to wait once more for further legal issues to be resolved. She is questioned about missing CCTV footage.
DC George Reid – this police witness is a ‘viewing manager’ whose team logs footage and instructed the Forensic Audio and Video Unit (FAVU) to compile an evidence film for the trial.
DC Matthew Hammersley – the final prosecution witness – a counter-terrorism officer who was also apparently a second ‘viewing manager’ involved in the compilation of video evidence.
After lunch, the jury heard a series of written statements:
PC Alice Tanner – this is the officer who originally collected USB sticks of video footage from Elbit.
Christian Mosely – a written statement by this Elbit security guard made after the start of the trial, outlines the handover of new video footage, and the discovery of police evidence bags inside a safe at Elbit Systems.
This brought the prosecution case to a close. The jury were sent home early, and due to a prior commitment of one of them, along with yet more legal matters to discuss, they were told to take a break until Thursday.
DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
The tenth full day of the trial, Thursday 4th December, saw the first of the six defendants in the witness box.
Charlotte Head – Defence barrister Rajiv Menon took Charlotte through her earlier life, background, education, work and activism, leading to her first association with Palestine Action, her decision to take part and the lead up to the action. Charlotte gave evidence all day, ending with her police interviews. The next morning there were some questions from other defence barristers.
Prosecution cross-examination of Charlotte Head.
Charlotte Head character references – written statements read to the jury, ending two days in the witness box for this first defendant and closing the third week of the trial.
WEEK FOUR
Samuel Corner – due to a juror’s prior commitments, the 12th day of the trial resumed in the early afternoon with this second defendant in the witness box. His defence barrister Mr Wainwright went through Sam’s background with him, his studies at Oxford University, how his autistic spectrum condition affected his social skills and perception, and his awareness and engagement with Palestinian issues, leading up to his signing up with Palestine Action. The barrister went through agreed facts and planning documents with Sam, and then to his part in the action itself, and the arrival of the police and Sam’s alleged assault. The day finished with Mr Wainwright asking Sam about his ‘no comment’ interviews.
Prosecution cross-examination of Samuel Corner – this began on Tuesday morning with Deanna Heer KC asking Sam more general questions around the planning and his intentions, before taking him through the footage of the action, and to the arrival of the police. She ended her cross-examination asking Sam about his ‘no comment’ interview. After lunch, Sam was asked a few questions by his defence barrister Mr Wainwright.
Jurors’ questions after a short break sought to clarify the law over lawful excuse, and also whether APS Evans had contradicted herself in evidence.
Sam Corner’s character witness statements – two witness statements were read out to the jury to conclude his evidence.
–
Leona Kamio is the third defendant, represented by Ms Hammad, who led her through her family life, education, background and work, and then to her association with Palestine Action. Her examination continued on Wednesday with Ms Hammad taking her through planning documents, search histories, purchases and other evidence, then her pre-action visit to the Filton factory and final preparations at the safe house. Then Ms Kamio was played clips, shown images and asked about the action itself, and interactions with security leading up to the moment of her arrest. After lunch, defence barrister for Ms Rajwani asked a question.
Leona Kamio’s cross-examination began with questions about interactions with security at the action, then looped back to preparations at the safe house and what Leona knew of the overall plan. After more questions about the action and her arrest, Leona was asked about her police interviews and the prosecution barrister ended by accusing her of stitching up her account to mislead the court. Leona’s barrister asks a couple of final questions in re-examination.
Leona Kamio character references – the jury heard five statements attesting to her honesty and moral code.
–
Fatema Zainab Rajwani – the fourth defendant (and youngest) took her oath in the witness box to start the day on Thursday. Her barrister Catherine Oborne went through her family background and education, before asking about her awareness of Palestine and journey into activism, and then her involvement in the Filton action. This led to questions about the preparations at the safe house and the action itself. Like the others, she was asked about her police interview.
Fatema Zainab cross-examination – this began late the next morning (Friday) because none of the defendants had had any breakfast, and attempts to organise at least a banana ran into procedural restrictions. Ms Heer started with general questions about what Ms Rajwani knew of planning, what she expected would happen, and any awareness of weapons or planned violence. She questioned Fatema about what was happening, what was discussed and presented at the AirBnB. Moving on, there were more direct questions concerning what happened in the factory. Ms Heer concluded by asking Fatema about her police interview, and why she’d avoided making any comment. Ms Oborne re-examined with several questions in response to prosecution allegations.
Ms Rajwani character witness statements – the jury heard five statements commending her intelligence, work ethic and empathy. Ms Oborne also read some medical evidence about Ms Rajwani’s injuries.
WEEK FIVE
Defendant Zoe Rogers gives evidence – Defence barrister Audrey Mogan began by asking about Zoe’s ADHD diagnosis, her police interviews and long remand in prison (16 months), before turning to her family background, upbringing, education and work, and then her awareness of the situation in Palestine. Ms Rogers was struggling to concentrate and it was revealed she hadn’t had a chance to eat, but after an early break for lunch, the jury were told that administrative issues needed to be dealt with, and because of a juror’s previous commitment on Tuesday, they were sent home until Wednesday.
Zoe’s evidence continued on Wednesday with her path to joining Palestine Action, but some of this was interrupted by the judge and the prosecution as straying outside relevance to the case. Zoe was asked about the training day at which she signed up for direct action. Ms Mogan asked Zoe about the Cryptpad training and planning documents, the journey to Bristol and the activities at the safe house, and then onto the action itself, the interactions with security guards and the damage to Elbit’s drones and manufacturing, until the arrival of police, her arrest, custody and remand. Other defence barristers asked Zoe some questions on behalf of their clients.
Zoe Rogers’ cross-examination – Ms Heer began her interrogation with questions about sledgehammers, evidence of planning for prison, and again showed the jury clips of the interactions with security, and then the final events leading up to arrest and police interview.
Ms Mogan asked a couple of questions in re-examination to conclude.
Zoe Rogers’ character witness statements – three witness statements alluded to Zoe’s compassionate and non-confrontational nature, and her thirst for knowledge and social justice.
–
Jordan Devlin chooses not to give evidence – after a short consultation with his client, defence solicitor-advocate Mr Andrew Morris told the court that Jordan would not be giving evidence.
Jordan Devlin’s character witness statements – in a series of five statements the jury were told of Jordan’s love of nature, his thoughtful, conscientious and non-judgmental attitude, and above all his ability to de-escalate and avoid confrontation.
—
While the jury had the pleasant surprise of an early holiday break, to the dismay of their legal representatives, the four female defendants were informed they were to be taken directly from the court without warning to Peterborough prison in Cambridgeshire.
January 2026 – WEEK SIX
LEGAL DIRECTIONS AND CLOSING SPEECHES
Legal directions – Tuesday 6th January after nearly a three-week break the jury returned to Woolwich Crown Court and Mr Justice Johnson addressed them on the role of the judge and the jury. He explained that they would receive a series of questions (Route To Verdict) to help them reach their verdicts, and he explained the charges that they would have to consider. We have published the full Route To Verdict separately here.
The judge continued his directions with a warning to set aside any emotion, sympathy or political views. He then addressed possible inferences the jury should or should not make on the basis of defendants’ medical conditions, ‘no comment’ interviews, character witness statements, and in the case of Mr Devlin, his decision not to give evidence.
–
Prosecution case – after a mid-morning break Ms Heer began her summary of the prosecution case against the six defendants. After an introduction she turned to each count – Criminal Damage, Violent Disorder, Aggravated Burglary, and then spoke about the planning that she said must have been involved. The prosecution claim that everyone knew the action involved violence and they expected prison. She showed footage again of the action, pointing out each of the defendants’ interactions with security guards and then the police.
A juror’s medical issue prevented the court from sitting on Wednesday, so Ms Heer continued her summary on the 20th day of the trial, Thursday 8th January with the count of Grievous Bodily Harm against defendant Sam Corner.
–
Defence speeches – these are all available in our separate article, beginning with the lead defence barrister.
Rajiv Menon KC on behalf of defendant Charlotte Head – the barrister began with a reference to political change and the suffragettes, before reminding the jury of Charlotte Head’s upbringing and selfless volunteer work in Calais and elsewhere, and then questioning to what extent she was an organiser in the action. He then covered five more general topics – Palestine and Israel’s attack on Gaza, the Palestine Action group, Elbit Systems, the action against the Filton factory (and what went wrong), and the issue of missing evidence footage.
After a break for lunch, Mr Menon considered each of the three charges laid by the prosecution against Ms Head, beginning with Aggravated Burglary.
On Criminal Damage, Mr Menon KC strayed into the area of lawful defences, the jury’s right to consider ALL the evidence, and the danger of interpreting a judge’s ruling as a direction to find guilty. Turning to Violent Disorder, the barrister considered in detail the way the legislation is framed, and what is meant by specific terms within it, before turning to the evidence given by the three security guards, and then considering Ms Head’s own conduct within the factory. Before concluding, Mr Menon mentioned the short video clip of Ms Head and Ms Rajwani which was published on social media, and also dealt with her arrest and interview, with a warning not to draw adverse inference from her decision not to comment.
In an emotional last observation, drawing the day to a close, Mr Menon quoted the famous poem by Refaat Alareer, ‘If I Must Die’.
–
Mr Tom Wainwright on behalf of Samuel Corner – Friday 9th January was the 21st day in the court, and Mr Wainwright began his defence speech on behalf of Samuel Corner by quoting him “I was trying to protect her” – his immediate explanation of the incident with police officer Kate Evans, referring to the screams he’d just heard from one of his younger female co-defendants. Focussing on Sam’s charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, Mr Wainwright reminded the jury of Sam’s autism diagnosis and his academic prowess, then covered whether Mr Corner was involved or even knew much about the planning. If there WAS any plan to use violence, he suggested Sam’s conduct with the security guards didn’t reveal it. He then looked at Sam’s state of mind when police arrived and half-blinded him with PAVA spray and used a Taser, and then what his intention and belief was during the incident. He referenced the judge’s directions on self-defence and defence of another, and the importance of being sure what Sam’s intention was, especially in light of the medical evidence of the police officer’s injury. The barrister completed his speech with a warning about the important role of the jury.
–
Ms Mira Hammad on behalf of Leona Kamio – She began by contrasting the prosecution’s allegations with the reality of the people, including Leona, who the jury had seen and had heard from. She pointed to Leona’s honest admissions about her role and limited knowledge, in contrast with the prosecution’s claims. Ms Hammad also scrutinised alleged evidence of any plan for violence. The barrister spoke to the jury about the issues around Elbit’s missing evidence footage. Next Ms Hammad challenged prosecution claims over the interactions with security guards, and the arrival of the police. After some observations over the interpretation of violent disorder, the barrister ended with her own appeal to the jury and their power.
–
Ms Catherine Oborne on behalf of Fatema Zainab Rajwani – Ms Oborne started by reminding the jury that Fatema Zainab had not had a single physical interaction with anyone in the warehouse and therefore should be found not guilty on counts 1 and 3. She analysed Ms Rajwani’s interactions with security one by one to make her case, then turned to what Fatema Zainab knew of the plans, and her likely naivety. Ms Oborne spoke about Ms Rajwani’s youth and personality and challenged the prosecution’s harsh cross-examination. After a concise consideration of the charge of violent disorder, the barrister concluded with her own appeal to the jury to remember their right to give defendants the benefit of ANY reasonable doubt.
WEEK SEVEN
Ms Audrey Mogan on behalf of Zoe Rogers – On Monday morning (Jan 12th), after a strong reminder to the jury of the importance of being sure of their verdict, barrister Ms Mogan reminded the jury of the evidence against Zoe with regard to aggravated burglary and suggested she had no intention to enter the building in order to injure anyone. Turning to the charge of violent disorder, the barrister reminded the jury of the legal elements necessary to convict and went through the evidence to show they had not been met. Ms Mogan picked apart the suggestion that violence was planned, and looked at how much organisers had told Zoe leading up to the action. She spoke about Zoe’s real intention – to smash the drones arming Israel. Turning to the significance or otherwise of Zoe’s ‘no comment’ interview, she said the prosecution were clutching at straws to prove their case. Nearing the end of her speech, Ms Mogan reminded the jury that Zoe had journeyed through the democratic processes available to her before turning to direct action, and then finished with her own appeal to the jury, describing Zoe as one of the most ‘peaceful and unproblematic’ people she’d ever known.
—
Andrew Morris on behalf of Jordan Devlin – the final defence speech, from solicitor-advocate Mr Andrew Morris, reminded the jury of the prosecution’s burden of proof and stated that Jordan didn’t need to give evidence because everything was there to see in the video evidence. Mr Devlin’s character references told of his commitment to non-violence and de-escalation, and after referring to these, Mr Morris turned to Jordan’s witness statement and his allegation that Mr Volante had assaulted him – credibly confirmed by his injuries. The lawyer listed the five interactions with security, and then went through them all in great detail, demonstrating the lack of credibility of prosecution witnesses against the coherence of Jordan’s allegation and written statement. He also noted that some of the missing footage may have backed up prosecution speculation, but that it was simply not available. Mr Morris moved on to Jordan’s small involvement and limited knowledge of the action plans. His speech ended by returning to Mr Devlin’s good character, and that there was such a real lack of a prosecution case against his client, there was no need for him to give evidence.
—
Judge’s summary for the jury – for the rest of Monday and the start of Tuesday, Mr Justice Johnson read his own notes of the trial to the jury, split into 13 sections. The last of these were a reminder of his legal directions with some additional comments in regard to the closing defence speech made by Rajiv Menon KC the previous week. Now we wait…
JURY DELIBERATION (into WEEK 8/9/10…)
And we wait! Due to previously-known commitments, by the end of the week the jury had effectively only deliberated for the equivalent of two days, and due to technical issues, they didn’t have access to the video evidence in their jury room until Friday. Then, at the start of WEEK 8 of the trial (January 19th), two jurors’ illnesses meant they didn’t sit on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. At the end of the day on Thursday, there was a jury note to the judge, which he responded to on Friday morning, attempting to clarify what the term ‘present together’ means in law (and relating to the charge of violent disorder):
Whether 3 or more people are present together is a matter for the jury to decide, by applying the ordinary English meaning of the words ‘ present together’, and considering them in relation to the facts in the case. There is also a chronological element. If 3 people are present together somewhere and then 2 leave, then that group of 3 is no longer present together at that place – so then there aren’t 3 present together.
The judge reminded them of questions 1,2 and 3 in the route to verdict – they should consider the same group of 3 or more people at the same point in time, whichever point they’re considering. So if fewer than 3 are present together at that particular point, or if fewer than 3 were committing or encouraging others to commit unlawful violence, then all would be NOT guilty.
On Monday morning, WEEK 9, 26th Jan, another juror was unwell and the rest were sent home. At the end of the day on Tuesday, another juror note asked about partial and majority verdicts, and on Wednesday morning the judge indicated he would take majority verdicts of 10-2 or 11-1 if necessary, but told the jury to continue to take their time and try and reach unanimous verdicts. Despite the majority direction, there was still no sign of a resolution at the end of the day. Thursday early afternoon, a note from the jury indicated they were making progress, but asked to be released to spend the weekend in ‘”personal reflection, away from the intensity of the jury room”.
WEEK 10 – Pre-commitments on Friday and Monday mean they weren’t due to return until Tuesday 3rd Feb but then a family health emergency led to the jury being sent home once again.
This morning (Weds 3rd), all jurors were in attendance. Before being sworn in, Judge Johnson addressed some notes he had received from members of the jury. One was a concern about people flyposting Trudi Warner-style notices in the roads around the court (reminding jurors that they have an absolute right to acquit on their conscience). He told them to ignore these and listen to his directions on the law. One juror had complained that things were getting intense during deliberation. The judge reminded them of his directions that every juror should be able to express their views and not feel pressured, and that each “must follow the directions and the route to verdict” that he had given them. He also said there was no pressure of time BUT that he wasn’t going to require them to stay until they’ve reached verdicts on which ten or more can agree if that becomes impossible, so to let him know if they reach a point they feel unable to make any further progress. He ended by reminding them that if anyone feels unable to follow his directions or comply with their jury oath or affirmation ‘to reach true verdicts according to the evidence‘ then to let him know, and he will address that. Deliberations continue…
VERDICTS – NO CONVICTIONS – FULL DETAILS HERE
