[Previous coverage – Week 1]
WEEK TWO
DAY FIVE OF TRIAL – MONDAY 25th NOVEMBER
Ms Heer continues the prosecution case by calling PC Aaron Buxton to give evidence. Buxton describes how he arrived with PC Jones, who stayed with security while he went to rear of the premises with other officers (Adams and Evans) and saw the prison van lodged in the loading bay. He entered past it through a pedestrian door. Alarms were going off, there was some sort of toxic smell in the building, and he saw people dressed in red who were smashing equipment in the building. Ms Heer mentioned red paint on the walls, and Buxton confirmed he saw that later on, but it wasn’t his first focus.
Towards his left, he saw a security guard having a struggle with a brown-haired male over possession of a sledgehammer, and he went towards them. He said that a man with lighter hair appeared to swing a sledgehammer towards the guard, and PC Buxton used a PAVA spray against both intruders, then tackled the darker haired man to the floor. The guard moved off while they struggled more, so that the male ended up on top. Buxton said that the blonder male approached again, swinging his sledgehammer which may have made contact with his leg and also with his police radio which had fallen off his lapel. He said that he felt pain, and that bruising came up later, and that the radio developed a fault afterwards.
Buxton described the blonde male walking away and that he had by then managed to get up and follow him. He saw PC Evans trying to handcuff a female, and said that he saw the male hit Evans on her back, causing her to drop to the floor, clearly upset and in pain. Buxton grabbed the man from behind and swung him to the floor, trying to grab his arms to handcuff him. He said the man was trying to put his hand in his pocket, and then pulled out what looked like a cigarette lighter. Because there was liquid on the floor, Buxton was worried it might be flammable, and so repeatedly punched the man in the arm, until he dropped the item. Evans by then had got up and assisted, and the security guard came over too, and between them they got the male into rear handcuffs.
—
Mr. Wainright cross-examined PC Buxton, and asked him about the spray he had used. It is apparently a prohibited substance – a dangerous, non-lethal synthetic (Pava spray) that requires training – it is a liquid, not a mist, with a 2-4 metre range, and it takes effect within seconds, lasts quite a while and needs fresh air over several minutes to wear off. Buxton agrees that it causes extreme pain and running eyes, so the victim can’t see clearly and become confused and disoriented.
The barrister reminds Buxton that when he entered the building there was loud noise and a horrible smell, and then shows the officer some video of the confrontation between the security guard and the intruder. The guard (Volante) is seen pushing the handle of the sledgehammer against the brown-haired male’s neck, and Buxton is asked if he remembered seeing that – he said he didn’t remember it. Wainright (who acts for Mr. Corner, the blonde man) shows footage showing Corner swing his hammer in order to hit the hammer held by the guard, and Buxton accedes that is what it looks like.
Next, Buxton is seen in the footage using his spray, and he agrees that Corner is not wearing any eye protection at that moment. Wainright asks him about the struggle with the brown-haired male on the floor, and about the moment that Corner returns. Buxton had given a video statement a couple of days after the incident, in which he describes Corner swinging the sledgehammer, and saying that although he wasn’t absolutely sure if it had hit him, he thought it probably had, because he remembered feeling pain, and because a bruise appeared a few days later. Mr. Wainright remarks that the officer also hadn’t mentioned damage to the radio in any earlier evidence, and Buxton agreed that it could have been away from his body on the floor somewhere.
Mr. Wainright also asked the jury to note that in Buxton’s evidence he said “I remember a horrible scream” which referred to the point at which one of the women was tazered.
—
Mr. Morris (acting for brown-haired Jordan Devlin) then takes over cross-examination, and asks Buxton to look once more at the footage, this time slowed down. When the video first shows the three people in red, Mr. Morris asks the officer whether he had noticed the security guard on his right holding a sledgehammer. He replies that he can’t remember. He was also asked when he’d first seen the footage and whether it was before writing his first statement. After challenging Mr. Morris as to whether it was a strike or whether it was a push that the guard administered with the sledgehammer on Devlin’s neck, Buxton does agree that his statement claimed the sledgehammer was in Devlin’s hands, but now realises that it was the guard who was actually holding it. The barrister asked the officer whether he knew why the guard had a sledgehammer, and he answered that he didn’t.
Morris ended by asking whether he had identified himself as a police officer verbally at any point – (he hadn’t), and to confirm whether he’d used the PAVA spray on people’s eyes – (he did).
—
Ms Heer (for the prosecution) asked Buxton whether he was wearing his police uniform at the time and he said yes. She also shows him the footage yet again, bringing attention to the moment Corner was walking away (after being sprayed), and then as he returns, the point at which he is alleged to have swung the hammer. She asked Buxton about the level of pain and discomfort the spray can cause. The officer said that in his own experience of it, after receiving some of the liquid, he had removed his contact lenses and got his vision and orientation back fairly quickly. She asked whether he’d noticed Corner having any difficulty seeing at the point he returned, and Buxton said he thought not.
There were no further questions for this witness, and the court took a short break.
—
Next on the stand was Acting Police Sergeant Kate Evans, with Ms Heer guiding her through her evidence.
On the night of the events, she was wearing full police uniform including a stab vest, and when she arrived at the factory, two security guards (one covered in foam) guided her with PC Adams into the warehouse.
On entry she saw a female with shoulder-length dark hair to her left, holding a raised sledgehammer. A guard and PC Adams went towards that female, and Evans approached another female with ginger hair to her right. The floor was wet and slippery and there was red paint on the walls. Evans grabbed the female by her arm, and they both fell to the floor, with Evans kneeling forwards over her in an attempt to handcuff her. She says she remembered seeing PC Adams looking towards her with shocked expression, and then she felt a shock through her body and pain in her lower right back. She described that the stab vest may have spread the blow, but that she was stunned, and she turned and saw a man with blonde hair holding a sledgehammer with both hands across his body. Trying to get up she felt a shooting pain and decided to remain on the floor, concerned about her injury. She confirmed she had felt just one blow.
Ms Heer described that from the footage it looked like Evans remained on her bottom and scooted around trying to help her colleagues. During that time, after Adams had discharged a Tazer, Evans helped remove the Tazer’s probe or barb from the clothing of the blonde man, and also checked his handcuffs. She said that the man was accusing her of complicity in genocide and murdering babies. She in turn accused him of hitting her, and Ms Heer reminded her that on the film he had replied he was trying to help the female (described as having red hair).
Ms Heer then inquired about Evans’ recovery process. Her first statement the next day described pain in her back and legs and difficulty sitting any length of time. She had problems with basic tasks that required bending, getting dressed, getting in and out of the bath, and so on, which caused pain. Her GP prescribed stronger painkillers. In April 2025, a further statement described continued pain, pins and needles and numbness. She was sent for an MRI scan which suggested no nerve damage, and good long-term prognosis. She returned to restricted work duties in November, but she said she still has problems with movement and exercise a year after the incident.
Ms Heer showed the court some photographs of bruising on the officer’s lower back right-side.
The only barrister requesting cross-examination was Ms Mogan, representing Zoe Rogers (the red-haired female). Mogan reminded Evans that in a police statement she had said that Ms Rogers wasn’t struggling, and that any apparent resistance to arrest might have been because they were slipping around on the floor. PS Evans conceded that as a possibility.
—
The next witness was PC Peter Adams, who had been a Sergeant at the time of the incident. He confirmed he arrived at Filton with APS Evans after the alarms had been activated, and they were guided in by two guards, one of whom (Angelo Volante) was wet from fire extinguisher foam. Adams described he’d seen objects on the car park such as hammers and wooden objects, and then noticed the prison van in the shutter.
On entering, Adams saw people in red boiler suits smashing equipment with sledgehammers, and there was liquid on the floor and red paint on the walls. He described seeing the two females, Kamio and Rogers. Volante went ahead towards Kamio, and Adams described her raising the hammer as if to hit. Adams said he shouted something like “drop that fucking thing now”. Volante managed to pull the hammer from her, and then Adams said he saw Kamio pick something up off the desk and throw it at him. The officer claimed it hit his body, and so he discharged his Tazer at her “to prevent escalation or harm”.
Ms Heer asked Adams to explain a bit about the Tazer. He described how it delivers a five-second electric shot through two probes, designed to cause pain and incapacitate muscles. Kamio is arrested after she falls to the floor, but Adams says that she doesn’t comply with being handcuffed, and tries to pull her hands away.
Adams is then asked about what he witnessed of the struggle between PC Evans and Zoe Rogers. He says that he saw Mr. Corner hit Evans on her back and tells the court there were two blows. He says he thinks both blows connected to the upper part of her back, and she screamed and fell to the floor on her back. Adams then shoots his Tazer at Corner, but the probes/barbs may have failed to contact. Because the barbs from the first shot are still attached to Kamio, she screams with pain because she is receiving a second 5-second burst, which Adams says was not his intention.
He sees PC Buxton taking Mr. Corner to the floor, and realises the Tazer may have missed its target. PC Evans had managed to get handcuffs on to Ms Rogers, and at that point he took over holding onto both Ms Rogers and Ms Kamio (who were both now in cuffs), and asked APS Evans if she was OK. She replied yes, but Adams says he didn’t think she was.
Going over to help Buxton, Adams sees Mr. Devlin put his hands up in a surrender pose, and then he sits and complies. He says that Mr. Corner is eventually put in handcuffs by the two officers after a further struggle.
Finally, Adams sees the two remaining women Rajwani and Head, both lying on the floor, and acknowledges that they were compliant in their arrest. Mr. Corner went limp and had to be pulled out of the building with another officer. Adams says Ms Kamio was also limp and refusing to walk out on her own.
For the defence, Mr Wainright asks Adams to look at the BWV footage from the police compilation. It shows PS Evans’ hand assisting the cuffing of Leona Kamio, and the moment the sledgehammer appears to hit Ms Evans. Adams agrees the hammer hits lower rather than upper back, and is the side of the hammer, not the head – also that the second blow appears to come down in front of her, as she rolls to her side. Adams agrees with this interpretation and that his recollection may have been mistaken, with the hammer coming down roughly where Evans had been reaching out towards Ms Kamio.
The next clip shows PC Buxton’s BWV footage, and Wainright points out that Mr. Corner has his eyes closed and arms across his face and that he is groaning. Going back to Adams’ BWV, Wainright shows the section where PC Buxton has Corner in a headlock, and Mr. Corner is still holding his face, apparently in discomfort. Mr. Wainright asks Adams whether he was aware that Mr. Corner had been PAVA-sprayed, and that therefore if he had been handcuffed behind his back he would no longer be able to touch his face. Adams said he was not aware Corner had been sprayed.
Barrister Ms Hammad, acting for Leona Kamio, suggests that the events he’d described could have a different interpretation. She asked whether it was possible Kamio was holding a sledgehammer up to hit equipment rather than threatening Mr Volante, and that she only turned towards him as it was in mid-air. She also asked if it was possible Kamio had grabbed a piece of computer equipment and thrown it to the floor rather than at him? She shows the footage frame by frame again, and Adams concedes that the footage seems to document Adams telling her to drop the hammer as she is going to hit the equipment. It’s only then that she turns around. Adams insists it still looks like she is arching it further back, but in a frame-by-frame look at a sequence of just three seconds, we see Volante was able to move in and grab the hammer without her hitting anyone. Next, it looks like the item Kamio picks up has wiring on it, and that the object she throws actually goes past him to the left. Adams thinks Hammad is pointing out part of his radio, and he insists that the object Kamio picks up was thrown at him. This is left inconclusive.
—
After a break for lunch, Ms Hammad continues her cross-examination of PC Adams asking him to confirm that Tazer incapacitates, hurts intently, and can cause burns. He does so, and also concedes that he didn’t call out “Tazer, Tazer” until after he is actually discharging it.
Ms Hammad reminds Adams that the barbs from the Tazer have remained in Ms Kamio, but when he turned her over he hadn’t been aware a barb was in the arm he was turning her on to. Ms Hammad asked whether, when Kamio shouted that she was hurting, Adams had tried to find out where? He said he hadn’t. Ms Hammad noted that the barbs are like sharp needles, and that if one was still in Kamio’s arm, this might explain why she struggled when being turned on to it. When he discharged the Tazer a second time (towards Mr Corner), the shock affected Kamio again, and we heard on footage after ASP Evans screamed, that Kamio asked Adams if he’d electrocuted Evans. He didn’t recall that, but agreed she’d said something like “did you do that?”. She was under the impression that Adams may have electrocuted Evans – the officer said he didn’t know what she thought.
Mr Morris (for Mr. Devlin) asked Adams whether he’d looked at BWV before making his statement, and asked whether he’d communicated with Buxton or seen his footage before making that statement. He said he hadn’t. Showing the court the footage again, Morris shows the section where Devlin says twice that he had been hit on the head by a sledgehammer, pointing at Mr. Volante. Morris points out that Adams’ statement was selective and he had completely missed that accusation out, asking him why? The officer replied that it was all in the footage anyway and that he couldn’t write everything down.
Morris asks what he’d done about the allegation, and whether he’d asked if Devlin was injured. He replied, there didn’t seem to be any injury.
—
Ms Gargitter (for the prosecution) then read out an uncontested statements beginning with the fourth security guard, Masixole Matshaya (aka ‘Matty’). He wrote that he was contracted part-time by Minerva Elite Security at the two Elbit sites at Filton and Aztec West (now closed). He described the earlier discovery of the hole in the fence. Then that night he’d heard bangs and fireworks, and phoned the police after realising there was an intrusion of people with sledgehammers in the warehouse. Police confirmed they were on their way, and he gave them access to the site. He helped usher more police vehicles in and that when another guard, the ‘uplift’ (Benedict Ellis) arrived, they took over that role, while Matshaya catalogued some of the damage and the items left in the warehouse and outside area.
Ms Gargitter next reads out Benedict Ellis’ statement. He also worked with Minerva and describes how he was due to start a shift at 4am, when he received the call from Matty about the incident. When he arrived, he helped at the main gate, and saw one of the arrestees being taken away, and also gave a description of items left in the car park area.
The following statement was from PC Hamish Morgan, who arrived later, and assisted removing arrested individuals from the warehouse. PC Alex Jagne’s statement similarly described his arrival and the assistance he gave in removing prisoners and then searching the premises. Another police statement by PC Andrew Schlegelmilch was read out, describing a search of the railway track via which some of the ‘black team’ may have escaped – the search uncovered some angle grinder discs and a small hatchet. A further statement from him added an aerial image showing the location of the items found.
PC James Tregaskis gave two statements listing items found in sweep searches of the site. These included a metal water bottle, a hiking pole, a battery angle grinder, and a back pack.
The final police statement of the day was from PC Jonathan Neale, and he described seeing the prison van, hearing the alarm, and seeing and smelling some sort of smoke in the air. He helped with handcuffing and arresting Charlotte Head, but describes being disorientated by the smoke, alarm, and by residue of PAVA spray that had been used on her.
The judge called a short break to discuss timetabling and court arrangements.
—
For the prosecution, barrister Harry Warner begins to lead investigating officer Detective Constable Hayden Johns through what is called the ‘sequence of events’, which is a set of documents with various columns showing things like bank account details, Signal communications (a private messaging app), phone numbers used, and any relevant email addresses used by the six defendants and other people who might be related to this trial. More pages list Signal groups alleged to have been used in the planning and execution of the protest, and references to CCTV footage and suchlike.
The sequence forms the basis of a series of facts which not contested by defence lawyers, and is long and detailed. Below is a flavour of the sort of things revealed and listed:
Planning documents showing how to deal with police raids – how to prepare and warn housemates etc. Bank records showing tickets bought to get to Bristol and to pay for the prison van. Video footage showing a car near the fence where the hole was found, with figures moving around. Evidence of internet searches taken from suspects’ devices. Signal messages, and Apple notes that indicate planning ahead of arrest. Cryptpad documents found on laptops. Messages about whether homeopathic remedies and/or vitamins would be allowed in case of remand to prison. Evidence of purchase of head torches and backpacks, crowbars, safety specs, sledgehammer, bolt cutters, rucksacks and other equipment. Payment for an Airbnb in Bristol. More lists of equipment and clothing. Phone records showing geolocation data. Clips from CCTV which show suspects meeting each other.
By now, it is past 4.30, and the judge calls a halt to proceedings for the day. Because of changes in commitments for some of the lawyers involved, it has been decided that the court will not sit again until Friday, and the jury is informed of this. The sequence of events will take up much of the business of that day.
DAY SEVEN OF THE TRIAL – 28th NOVEMBER
After three days off because some of the barristers involved had to attend to other matters, day seven begins with police witness DC Johns back in the witness box, effectively to rubber-stamp the continuing ‘sequence of events’ which the prosecution reads out.
Ms Gargitter read a statement out to the court which was given by car salesman Mr. Saddique, who specialises in ex-police vehicles. He states that he received an inquiry about his advertised ex-prison van from Ms Head. A “pleasant and polite” man who claimed to be her father accompanied her when they came to view the vehicle, and a deal was reached to sell the van for £6250. Ms Head paid a £250 deposit, pending MOT to be arranged by the seller. She told Mr. Saddique that she was setting up a “Prison Experience” company. A description of Ms Head was provided and it appears she was the one who paid the remainder of the cash when she picked up the van at the beginning of August.
The next statement was from Michael Hayhoe, who described the prison van parked up near his Manchester home, and described a female that appeared to be Ms Head meeting a man who lived locally, also described to the court – the barrister reminded the court of some footage shown as part of the ‘sequence of events’ on Monday from a nearby camera showing that meeting.
A third statement was by a member of Screwfix staff, describing a male ordering a range of items costing around £700 which he paid for in cash. He returned the following day when everything was ready for him. A description was given of the man.
Ms Gargitter’s colleague Mr Warner took over again guiding the jury through the sequence of events, beginning with footage of the prison van captured by various cameras around the beginning of August. A series of documents are shown relating to Ms Head inquiring about insurance for the vehicle followed by a payment for cover. The policy itself shows that the insured person is named as Leona Kamio.
Next are references to a Cryptpad document (a secure online service), which had been found on a computer linked to one of the defendants. It had details of the planned action including its aims, as well as links to surveillance photographs of the Filton site, and a list of equipment needed. The list of aims include to cause damage and disruption to the operation of the site by targeting key systems, and occupy it for as long as possible to also gather intelligence on Elbit’s partners and operations. Equipment included sledgehammers, crowbars, fire extinguishers, eye protection, head torches, gloves, boiler suits and GoPro cameras.
The plan to enter the site is set out in some detail, with the role of the ‘coverts’ to set off smoke grenades to conceal activity from security, or even push them back. There are contingency plans such as if security surround the van, coverts get on top and use smoke grenades and fire extinguishers to distract them, and another suggestion to attempt a ‘de-arrest’ if the driver is pulled out of the van.
A section on ‘intelligence gathering’ gives instruction on using the GoPro cameras to collect product names, and delivery information. The document also contains a plan for reconnaissance and cutting the escape hole, as well as details of the escape plan for the coverts.
Finally, there is a legal briefing, outlining possible charges, warning that remand is quite likely, and there is a final checklist of things like making sure there’s petrol in the van.
Mr. Warner continues through the details of the sequence of events. There’s evidence of purchase of train tickets, and hire of other vehicles. A short clip is played showing the prison van parked up in Bristol and then some CCTV from a post office where Mr. Devlin withdrew some cash in north London prior to travelling to Bristol. More clips and screenshots are shown of team members purchasing various items related to the action and images captured of their journeys to Bristol. Mr. Devlin is shown boarding a coach at Victoria Coach Station. There is also footage from Victoria of Ms Rajwani and Ms Rogers boarding a coach and sitting next to each other.
Geo-location evidence from the mobile phones of Mr. Corner and Mr. Devlin place them later on in Bristol, and there are further clips showing the movement of the prison van, including footage from what is described as an ANPR camera.
Ms Gargitter takes over once more to read two more written statements. The first is by Pamela Maggs, who co-owns the Bristol camp-site which Ms Head booked on the 4th August. She describes the large van with square windows which Ms Head said they were in the process of converting to a camper van. The statement described others who were with her.
A statement by another camper was also read aloud. It described the prison van, and conversations the camper had with a male about a plan to convert it.
—
After a short break, the morning continued with Mr. Warner taking the jury through photographs from a doorbell camera owned by someone living near the Bristol Airbnb which show various people including Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin.
The journeys of various vehicles are then described, a hire vehicle is caught by an ANPR camera in Stoke-on-Trent, and various sightings of the prison van are shown as it travels towards Bristol. Ms Head is identified in the van, and she also makes a payment for the M6 toll road near Birmingham on that journey. Other vehicle sightings and geo-location of phone calls and messages show how various activists gather together near the Airbnb.
Ms Kamio’s car is caught on CCTV near the Filton site early on the day before the action.
Ms Gargitter has three more statements to deliver. The first is from the owner of the Bristol Airbnb and describes how he rented it out while he and his family went travelling. He received a request from Ms Head, for her and five friends to stay two nights at a cost of around £900, which he accepted and which she then booked and paid for. They duly arrived on the 4th August, and the owner describes people he saw in the front garden on his Ring camera system. (Screenshots are shown to the jury). Later he realised that the camera was no longer working, and with no response from Ms Head he asked a neighbour to take a look. That neighbour reported the cameras had been removed. Wilson telephoned Ms Head and she apologised and arranged for the cameras to be put back up, and that she didn’t know who had taken them down.
The second statement was by the neighbour who affirmed his visit to the Airbnb at the request of the owner and described the people who he saw, and his confirmation that the Ring cameras had been taken down.
The final statement was by a staff member of Enterprise car hire describing how Leona Kamio came to pick up a van. The next day (after the action), the van was returned but left unlocked – after a search the keys were found inside. The vehicle was undamaged, so the company made no further investigation, and there was no CCTV showing who returned it.
Mr Warner gave a few more details from the sequence, including more ANPR camera footage showing the prison van and the Enterprise van travelling in convoy in Bristol. Messages are shown between Ms Head and the owner of the Airbnb in relation to the Ring cameras, and more images that were captured of Ms Kamio’s car near Filton, as well as the prison van and the Enterprise van reaching the campsite.
—
After lunch, Mr. Warner continued with evidence of the topping-up of mobile phones which had been used by some of the defendants. CCTV was recovered from a church building near the AirBnb, which shows the comings and goings of vehicles, and more geo-located phone information puts some of the defendants near there.
CCTV from a Screwfix outlet in Bristol shows Mr. Devlin buying equipment. The invoice shows the purchases as an angle grinder and discs, chisels, crowbars, gloves and safety spectacles.
The prosecution detail various messages between activists, and the discovery of a Signal group, recovered from phones later, which is administered by a member named ‘PA Actions’.
As the jury are taken through the minutiae of all the evidence collected (we’ve got to page 94 of the document so far!), we continue to hear chants from the loud protest which has been ongoing outside the court all day.
As the sequence approaches the moment of the action against Elbit, various Signal messages confirm that activists are on their way to the site, and ANPR CCTV again spots related vehicles on the journey. Messages are exchanged about switching on GoPro cameras and getting streaming to work, with some technical difficulties.
Clips recovered from GoPro cameras show the moment the van gains entrance to the site, and there is a message on the Signal group to “Start smashing, guys!”.
The intercepted Signal group also reveals a message exchange which took place during the action – one of these is “Get through the ceiling panels – use a crowbar” and “Those are Israeli drones – quadcopters they are not supposed to have.”
Jumping to an hour or more after the action, CCTV images captured vehicles associated with the action and with amembers of the covert team.
In the next evening, more messages are exchanged as Signal groups are disbanded, warning people to delete any footage and images and not to speak to anyone about the action. Reference is made to a clip of the action posted on social media by Palestine Action, and to a short social media clip of Ms Rajwani and Ms Rogers speaking to camera briefly from inside the factory during the action.
The judge calls a short break, but the lead defence barrister Mr. Menon asks him for a little longer in order to raise an issue. Judge Johnson doesn’t appear willing to grant this, and tells the jury the court will resume “as soon as possible” after a ten minute break.
—
Statutory reporting restrictions prevent publication of matters raised while the jury is not present, but after the break, instead of continuing and finishing the sequence of events with police witness PC Johns, which may include some cross-examination from the defence, the jury is told that they will now hear from Ms Gargitter what are called the ‘Agreed Facts’.
This is another 25 pages for the jury, which detail prosecution allegations and evidence that the defence accept as true and that they do not wish to question or cross-examine. Much of this material has already been covered in the ‘sequence of events’. Among new snippets of information is that none of the defendants have any previous convictions or cautions. A timeline derived from various sources of evidence (eg CCTV, mobile phone location, vehicle licence plates and so on) traces each defendant’s movements and some of their activities leading up to the action. After noting that Elbit had not given permission for entry, and describing the metal fencing around the facility, the defendants’ arrests, the arresting officers involved, and any recorded injuries were listed. Mr Devlin’s numerous injuries were recorded and on the following evening the custody officer authorised his escorted transfer to hospital, noting that large bruises were forming which Devlin said were caused by a sledgehammer.
The defendants were moved to Hammersmith Police Station the next day, and a list of Devlin’s injuries were recorded there, which included hight shoulder tricep area was swollen, injuries to both wrists and his right cheek, a bump on his head, black right eye, bruised shins, thighs, and left arm, a bruised right elbow, and his left pectoral.
The agreed facts continued with a description of the workings of the Signal app, and of a Signal group found on phones that appeared to be used to upload GoPro footage.
Ms Rogers and Mr Corner had hand-written notes on them at the time of arrest. Ms Rogers’ contained a phone numbers of a lawyer, along with other help organisations for prisoners along with a some basic rights information.
After this long day of evidence, the judge called a break and thanked the jury for their attention, telling them there are matters to discuss with counsel and suggesting they start at 10.45 on Monday. Defence barrister Mr Wainwright rises and says there may be an issue to discuss and could the jury step out for a minute.
Judge Johnson sighs loudly as if the request is unreasonable, and Mr. Wainwright says that he is simply trying to help and save time in the long run.
The jury leaves for a few minutes while legal issues are discussed, and on their return the judge tells them to be ready to start at 10.45 as before. He reminds them not to do their own research on internet and avoid reading about the case in the press and to keep an open mind and forget about the case over the weekend.
That concluded the second week of the Filton trial, apart from some more legal discussions.
Real Media will continue reporting as the trial unfolds over the coming weeks.
ICYMI the record of the first week of trial can be found here
Third week coverage is here
