In the early hours of 6th August 2024, members of Palestine Action breached the perimeter of the newest UK research and development factory belonging to Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems. Six of them (known as the red team) drove a second-hand prison van into a warehouse shutter door, and proceeded to try and smash weaponised drones they believe were destined for export for use in Gaza, collect information about Elbit’s activities and partners, and damage manufacturing equipment, computers and anything else that would disrupt business as usual.
What happened in the next 15 to 20 minutes has been the focus of weeks of evidence and scrutiny at Woolwich Crown Court which has been followed and reported on in detail by Real Media.
Last week and at the start of this week, legal representatives for the six defendants gave their closing speeches to the jury, which you can read here. The last speech the jury heard before retiring to consider their verdict, was a summary by Mr Justice Johnson, the judge in the trial.
Over the course of several hours on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning, the judge gave the jury his synopsis in 13 chapters, the first 12 being a summary of the evidence, and the last being some final legal directions. The judge reminded the jury that the facts and evidence are for them to decide on. He told them that if he missed out something they felt was important, they should take it into account, and if he included something they don’t feel is important, they should ignore it. The judge’s summary, he said, is not intended to include comment, and if the jury feel the judge is expressing any view, then they are free to agree or disagree with it.
They were reminded about the various pieces of evidence they will be able to refer to in the jury room, including an indexed copy of the video evidence,.
We’re not reporting on the whole summary, because there’s nothing in it that hasn’t already been covered in our previous coverage – the judge split his summary into these chapter headings:
-
- Palestine Action, actions, and the planning of the Filton attack
- Purchases, possible recce and travel arrangements
- The security guards
- Police evidence at the scene
- Return of the hire van
- Police investigation
- Charlotte Head
- Samuel Corner
- Leona Kamio
- Fatema Zainab Rajwani
- Zoe Rogers
- Jordan Devlin
In his ‘Chapter 13’, the judge started by clarifying a point in the Route To Verdict about the charge of Violent Disorder, that all three questions refer to a group of three or more persons, and particularly that it is the same group that must be together in each question. The first question is about the existence of that group, the second is about that group using or threatening unlawful violence (i.e. not in self-defence or defence of another). The third question is whether the conduct of that group would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their safety. The judge then announced that he wanted to say a few words in relation to the closing defence speech by Rajiv Menon KC on behalf of Charlotte Head:
“In his speech to you, Mr Menon made a number of observations about the law. They included that a judge may not direct a jury to convict, they included reference to a plaque at the Old Bailey relating to a case in the seventeenth century, and they included reference to whether the defendants had raised a lawful excuse within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and a ruling he told you I had given about that. He also said that the prosecution had not contested evidence about Elbit Systems UK Limited and its role, and he made comments about the significance of the prosecution not contesting that evidence and about the importance of that evidence.
Dealing with that last point first, everybody agrees that the defendants believed that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and that they believed that Elbit was complicit in that. Ms Heer expressly acknowledged that at the outset of her cross-examination of Charlotte Head. She did not at any stage challenge that the defendants’ beliefs were genuinely and sincerely held. I directed counsel that evidence as to the reasons for those beliefs and the history of the Middle East and the role of Elbit Systems was not relevant to any issue that you needed to determine. It follows that Ms Heer was not permitted to ask questions about those matters. It further follows that there is no significance in her not doing so, or indeed in the evidence itself. It is not relevant to the questions that you need to determine.
The totality of the law that applies in this case is set out in the legal directions I have given you. They include the questions you need to ask yourselves to reach your verdicts. If I have made any error of law, including about the questions you need to answer, or the availability of a defence, or about the relevance of evidence, then the defendants have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. It is not for counsel, or for you, to second guess the correctness of my legal rulings or to apply any different approach to the law.
That means that you must follow the legal directions I have given and you must address the questions in the route to verdict. Working through and answering those questions, having regard to my directions on how to approach matters of law, will lead you to verdicts in accordance with their oath.
On the other hand, the answers to those questions are entirely for you to decide according to your view of the evidence. I have not told you that you must answer any of those questions in any particular way. And as Mr Morris correctly observed, to the extent that I suggested you may not find questions 2.1 and 2.2 particularly difficult, it is for you to decide whether or not you agree with that, because it is your view, not mine, that counts.”
The judge then went through a few administrative points with the jury, about the evidence the prosecution and defence have agreed they can have, and about the need for them not to discuss the case except when all are present together in the jury room.
He reminded the jurors that they should listen to each other’s opinions with a view to reaching unanimous verdicts of guilty or not guilty for each of the defendants on each of counts 1, 2 and 3, and in respect of Mr Corner it could be guilty, not guilty, or one of three alternatives. These are all set out in the Route To Verdict. He warned them that although they may have heard of majority verdicts, it would take some time before he asked them to come back into the court for further directions.
A ’Jury Bailiff’ was then sworn in – a single member of court staff who will ensure the jurors have no outside influence, and that they adhere to the judge’s instructions.
Now we wait…
