[Previous coverage – Week 1, Week 2, Week 3 and Week 4]
WEEK FIVE – Final two defendants give evidence
DAY 17 – MONDAY 15th DECEMBER
Zoe Rogers in the witness box
Judge Johnson began the proceedings this morning by giving the jury some medical evidence that Ms Rogers has been diagnosed with autistic spectrum condition and ADHD. He told them this may affect how she gives evidence at trial and that she may lose focus and need extra breaks, and may even become overwhelmed requiring her to write rather than speak. The jury were reminded that they shouldn’t hold any of that against her, if those traits appear in court.
Ms Rogers then took her oath in the witness stand, giving her name and telling the court she is 22 years old. Her barrister Audrey Mogan asked how old Ms Rogers was at the time of the action (20), and confirmed she has been in prison for 496 days (16 months). Prior to her participation in the Filton protest, she had never had any cautions, convictions or arrests.
Asked about how her ADHD might manifest, Ms Rogers said it sometimes causes her to talk too much, or at other times to make her go quiet, and she can fidget and become disorientated in unfamiliar social situations. Her autism makes it difficult for her to make eye contact. She told the court she was diagnosed when she was around 18.
Ms Mogan asked about Ms Rogers’ arrest and interview and what her state was at the time. Ms Rogers said she’d slept the night of the 4th (a whole day before the action), didn’t sleep on the night, and then couldn’t sleep at the police station, because she was held in a bright cell for 17 hours before the first police interview. Her medical assessment at that time confirmed that she appeared to have a ‘nervous shocked demeanour’. Over the following days she was held incommunicado under counter-terrorism powers, and wasn’t allowed to contact anyone in her family for the first week.
Ms Mogan referenced some agreed pieces of evidence, and Ms Rogers said she’d been given a slip of paper with the number of an ITN solicitor by action organisers. She also was shown some notes of prison information that she had written out herself in the run up to the action. She said she’d been given information from a prison workshop she’d attended.
Turning to ‘agreed facts’ Ms Mogan asked about the ‘prepared statement’ that Ms Rogers gave to police during interview. It stated that she did not intend to harm anyone or use serious violence, nor wish any violence on anyone. It stated that didn’t carry anything to use as a weapon, and that no-one she was with had any sort of incapacitant spray. She didn’t see anyone use whips or fireworks against security guards. It ended by stating that she was scared when security guards entered the warehouse. Asked why she gave the statement and refused to ask any other questions, Ms Rogers explained it was on the advice of her solicitor, which she followed carefully because the situation was way more serious than she’d imagined it would be.
Ms Mogan next asked about her background, and Ms Rogers said she lived in north London with her mother (a Safe Streets cycling and walking campaigner), and her younger sister. She studied A levels in maths and biology at college (with a view to becoming an environmental data scientist), but had to leave due to her mental health, carrying on studying at home. She passed with B grades, which meant she had to do a further access course to try and get into university. For that, she started studying social science and humanities, because she began to understand that climate and environmental issues needed political solutions and she wanted to learn how the world works in terms of history and politics.
While studying Ms Rogers took part-time work as a kitchen porter, soup kitchen volunteer, and tree planter.
Motivated to political action, Ms Rogers started taking part in Greta Thunberg’s ‘Fridays For Future’ protests, and Ms Mogan asked about her interest in Palestine.
Ms Rogers spoke about learning very early on in Israel’s genocide that more children had been killed in Gaza than in a whole year and a half of the Ukraine war. Her studies also taught her about Israel’s bombing of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, and the complicity of the IDF in cutting babies out of the wombs of women, the tying up of men and machine-gunning them, and widespread rapes. She realised then, that Palestinians weren’t safe from Israel, even when they left their homeland.
Ms Rogers spoke about a letter she’d heard about, from a hundred journalists calling out BBC coverage, causing her to seek information elsewhere to find out the truth about what was happening in Palestine. She started going to the PSC national marches, one of which was the second largest march in UK history, but it became obvious that the government wasn’t listening. She started making information stickers during the winter of 2023/2024 to try and let people know about an Amnesty International report that Israel is an apartheid and occupying state. She also wrote to her MP in November 2023.
The judge intervened before Ms Mogan could proceed further, to check that Ms Heer had seen the document in question. He seemed concerned about the information being discussed in court – the jury have already seen him intercede earlier in the trial when defence barrister Mr Menon tried to ask a security guard Mr Shaw whether he was aware that Elbit Systems was Israel’s biggest weapons supplier.
Ms Heer confirmed that she had agreed a ‘way in which this could be done’, but then had a short huddle with Ms Mogan to discuss it further before giving way.
Ms Heer said there was no dispute that the evidence showed a letter Ms Rogers had written to her MP, asking him to comply with international law and stop sending weapons to Israel to be used in a genocide. The letter also asked the MP to join parliamentary calls for a ceasefire. All she received back was an automated response. It was clear to Ms Rogers at this point that despite the evidence from multiple international organisations that Israel’s actions were illegal, the democratic process in the UK was failing.
Ms Rogers was struggling a little by now and the judge agreed to a short break.
—
On her return, Ms Rogers said she hadn’t had any food this morning and felt dizzy and might black out. The judge agreed to a further 20 minute break and said he would ensure some food would be made available.
—
After a further break, the jury were told that the court would take an early lunch and return at 1pm.
However, on their return, Judge Johnson then told the jury that there have been some administrative problems that needed sorting out, and to not hold it against any of the defendants, but that the court will now take a break and sit again on Wednesday morning. (It was already known that one juror had an unavoidable personal commitment on Tuesday).
[Bananagate – Part 2: We mentioned the food issues at the start of our coverage of Day 16 before the weekend. Part of the reason for further delays and the early end of proceedings today was the continuation of those problems. When the judge requested that a court clerk provide a banana to a defendant in the dock today, the Serco staff refused, telling the court that they had got into trouble for doing so on Friday. Security rules at the court also apparently meant that packed lunches provided by the prison could not be checked and provided before 1pm. Even the intervention of the judge apparently could not overcome these obstacles to common sense.]
DAY 18 – WEDNESDAY 17th DECEMBER
(The case for Ms Zoe Rogers continues)
The court didn’t sit yesterday in order to accommodate a juror’s personal commitment, so began again this morning with the continuation of Ms Rogers’ evidence-in-chief.
After Ms Rogers returned to the witness stand this morning, her defence barrister Ms Mogan summarised her evidence from Monday afternoon in brief, and then asked when she’d first heard about Palestine Action.
Ms Rogers said she’d first come across direct action with reference to the David Graeber quote, which appears in the evidence bundle:
Protest is like begging the powers that be to dig you a well.
Direct action is digging it yourself and daring them to stop you.
Given that the UK was threatening to defund the International Criminal Court if they continue with an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, Ms Rogers started looking for ways to become involved with direct action, typing ‘direct action’ and ‘Palestine’ in a search engine, and immediately came across Palestine Action. She saw that they’d carried out very many actions, including occupations, spraying paint, smashing windows and so on, but she confirmed when asked, that among all the actions there didn’t appear to be any reference to confrontation with, or violence against, security staff, police staff or others.
Ms Rogers said she learnt from the Palestine Action website about Elbit Systems and its weapons being ‘battle-tested’ on Palestinians. Ms Mogan asked what other evidence she researched about Elbit. She said she’d looked at Elbit’s own website too, and-
At this point, Judge Johnson interrupted Ms Mogan telling her these questions were outside what he had suggested were relevant to the trial and asked her to move on, much as he had done earlier in the trial when the subject of Elbit was touched on by defence barrister Mr Menon in his cross-examination of security guard Mr Shaw. Ms Mogan said it was important for Ms Rogers to be able to explain she had done a lot more research than just looking at the Palestine Action website.
Prosecution barrister Ms Heer stood up and said “so there’s no mystery for the jury” that there was no dispute about Ms Rogers’ “subjective beliefs” about Elbit.
Under pressure, and commenting that it was important Ms Rogers be able to give her account, Ms Mogan moved on and asked next about how Ms Rogers had joined a training call on a video link early in 2024. Ms Rogers thought there were around ten people online, and that various slides were shown, which were similar to those seen in the jury bundle evidence. Ms Rogers remembered there was a lot of information shown to her about Palestine and about Elbit, but she noted that all that stuff had been removed from the evidence given to the jury.
Ms Mogan took her through some of the pages, including the David Graeber quote, some information on why direct action works, and a map of Elbit sites across the UK. Ms Rogers couldn’t definitely remember the map, but said the organiser had talked about the sites and was very proud that some of them had been shut down for good.
She remembered being told about companies that supply Elbit or finance them and so on.
She didn’t think the “action types” were discussed, and there was no request for people to sign up immediately. Looking at more photos of actions like lock-ons, Ms Rogers wasn’t sure if they were shown in the call, but she knew about them from Insta posts.
When shown the action sign-up sheet, she didn’t think that was displayed in that first meeting, but that some of the information, such as the “need to know” protocol, was discussed.
Ms Mogan asked whether Ms Rogers used the Signal app before getting involved, and she said she did. Asked about arrest training, Ms Rogers confirmed she’d seen and been told about ‘going floppy’ and had seen videos of Palestine Action arrests like that.
After the video call (which was around 90 minutes long), Ms Rogers didn’t hear anything despite leaving her number for them, so a few months later in May, she filled in an online form to join an in-person training day. She said she wanted to get involved because she’d seen horrific videos of bombs being dropped on crowds in Palestine, and then armed drones being used to pick off survivors.
In her application form, Ms Rogers said she may have mentioned she had climbing skills (because she was a member of a climbing club), but she also had an ankle injury (from falling from a climbing frame), although she couldn’t remember whether that was before or after signing up. The jury was shown photographs of Ms Rogers at hospital with crutches and a moon boot. She confirmed that she could walk but not run, and still had pangs of pain in August at the time of the action. She had mentioned her injury to organisers at Palestine Action on the training day.
Ms Mogan asked whether Ms Rogers knew any of her co-defendants prior to the training, and showed her a list of names. She said she met Ms Head (by sight) at the training day, and only met Mr Corner and Ms Kamio at the Air BnB. She remembered speaking to Ms Rajwani briefly at the training day, but only met Mr Devlin in Bristol.
The training was held over several hours in Manor House, north London, in late May or early June, and she thought there were maybe sixty people in attendance. After a chance for participants to introduce themselves and say why they had come, there were talks about the history of Palestine and Zionism, and about Elbit Systems, with accompanying visuals on a projector.
As other defendants have described before her, after hearing about Elbit’s role in Palestine, Ms Rogers showed her willingness to join the high level / arrestable corner of the room, where there was a brief discussion about possible action, but then because it was such a large group (she thought maybe 25-30 people), it broke into smaller groups where people could ask more questions individually.
Ms Rogers remembered there were some questions about how arrest might affect jobs and DBS and so on. She didn’t think she spoke much as she is awkward in situations like that.
Asked whether she’d seen any mention of a higher category of ‘High Level ++’, or mention of weapons, she responded no.
Because of her injured ankle, she asked to be removed from the first Signal action group she was invited into, and then she was added later on to the Filton one. In an initial video call, she remembered seeing Ms Head, but in the following group calls, maybe twice a week, most people were on audio only. She said they were drip-fed information, and that they learnt that the action would target Filton early in July. They were told it was a factory supplying weapons to Israel, and probably a couple of weeks before the action they were told about the prison van. She remembered being told the likely charges would be criminal damage and burglary, and she was also told the police might try to use ‘aggravated burglary’, most likely just to scare her. She said she hadn’t really known what ‘aggravated’ meant legally.
Ms Rogers confirmed was never any mention of violent offences, and said that anyway the group had specifically set a red line that they wouldn’t be comfortable with violence. There hadn’t been a suggestion of confrontations with security or police, and she repeated what other defendants had said – that they’d been told the only people to date that had been placed on remand were repeat offenders.
Ms Mogan then asked the jury to look at the ‘sequence of events’ and the Cryptpad documents including the ‘pre-action form’, which Ms Rogers said everyone had been asked to fill out. There were also documents relating to prison, and Ms Rogers said she’d been looking at it because she’d had a ‘prison-training day’, which was described as a ‘just in case’ contingency.
Ms Rogers said she researched it because she wanted to be well-prepared, but still felt it unlikely, as they had been told.
Ms Mogan showed some evidence photos of aerial shots and other reconnaissance images, and Ms Rogers confirmed she’d seen some of them – she said there was an original plan to drive through the front window of the building, and this was marked out on one of them. She remembered seeing a YouTube video of someone flying their drone around the factory (which showed security guards at the gate).
Asked about equipment, Ms Rogers said they would have sledgehammers to smash equipment, and ropes to bind doors as barricades to delay their arrest and prolong the damage. Ms Mogan asked if anyone had ever mentioned any equipment as being used as ‘weapons’. She said the word had never been used at any time.
Judge Johnson suggested this would be a good moment for a short break.
—
After a short pause, Ms Rogers continued by confirming that she met Ms Rajwani on the coach to Bristol – they were texting each other to arrange the meet, and they were supposed to travel with Mr. Jordan as well, but he was delayed. They talked about films and shared some food that Ms Rajwani’s mother had made. She couldn’t remember being given the address of the AirBnB but someone in the group was sent it and they worked out how to get there.
Ms Mogan showed some images from the AirBnB – Ms Rogers remembered someone jumping on the trampoline while they waited to go inside. Once in, the red team were given first pick of rooms, and she shared one with Ms Rajwani. Other people started arriving, and during the first day they killed time watching videos and chatting. She remembered talking with Fatema Zainab about setting up a book club. They’d been told not to discuss the action at all outside of organising meetings, because people had their phones out. The first of the organised talks was late the night before the action, with around 15 people in attendance. She remembered the organisers had a laptop connected to the TV screen – these were group meetings, but she didn’t think individuals’ roles were discussed.
Ms Rogers said she was quite concerned about what would happen once inside the factory. There were no handouts at the talk, just a screen display, which Ms Mogan referenced with some images from the evidence bundle. Ms Rogers remembered seeing the line ‘Enter with vengeance’ on one of the images – she thought it was a bit of a joke, not something you could do physically – it caught her attention although it was just part of a list, and not mentioned orally that she could recall. Ms Rogers also didn’t remember ever seeing the action described as ‘High Level ++’.
There was talk of equipment but she didn’t see a list as such. There was definitely no mention of ‘BB guns’ (listed in a Cryptpad list). She knew there would be smoke grenades used to cause a distraction and hide what was going on. She said she was sure no-one spoke about potential violence, and didn’t hear anyone talk about ‘coverts pushing security back’ in those terms. Ms Rogers said the coverts were simply going to be there to cause a distraction. Also in the document Ms Mogan highlighted a suggestion that coverts enter to ensure there were no security about, but Ms Rogers said that wasn’t mentioned at the meeting, and in any case, no coverts did go in.
In the contingency plans, she remembered the mention of attempting to ‘de-arrest’ if the driver is pulled out of the van. Her understanding was it meant to try and pull someone back, or to sit around a police van to prevent it moving away – she knew it was a typical tactic amongst protesters but never involving violence.
Returning to the ‘sequence of events’, Ms Mogan mentioned the web history of another defendant that referred to a ‘Removals Ninjas Group’, and asked Ms Rogers if she’d heard the term Ninjas used about their team. She hadn’t. The Signal group was just called ‘Removals’.
Ms Rogers also confirmed she didn’t think there had been any discussion of fireworks, whips, axes, kebab skewers or paintball guns, but there were things like hammers that would be used to damage equipment.
Their last meeting before the action was just for the red team alone, with an organiser popping in and out, during which Ms Rogers expressed her concern about what they’d do once inside, and wanted to sort out roles for them. During that, Mr. Corner agreed to smash the toilets to cause flooding, but that in general, the group would just try to stick together.
Asked about security, the organiser reassured her that they don’t usually get involved – they just normally phone the police. She trusted this advice because the organiser had a lot of previous experience and knowledge.
Asked about any tools she’d seen at the AirBnB, Ms Rogers remembered garden shears, and a smoke bomb – (the shears were to cut electrical wires). They also discussed blades and batteries for the angle grinder, which she said they needed in order to weaken the shutter. The rucksacks were packed by someone else, with sledgehammers, fire extinguisher, gloves and goggles, and someone would have a first aid bag too, and rope.
She didn’t see the bags themselves and was only told about what was going in them.
From the evidence bundle, Ms Mogan showed the photograph of the red team together, and pointed out the writing (a defence solicitor’s number) on her arm. Ms Rogers said the image had been taken shortly before the action and was going to be published on social media once they were arrested.
Ms Rogers said she didn’t have any sleep in the hours before the action. She added snacks and a book to the backpack in the back of the van (though it was pitch black, other than briefly someone had a headband lamp). She confirmed she didn’t see anything like whips or axes while in the van. She was preoccupied trying to pull the sledgehammer out of her bag, realising it was caught under the fire extinguisher.
Once at the site, the idea was to brace themselves as the van impacted. The fences were fine, but Ms Rogers was still trying to get her sledgehammer out as they hit the shutter, and her spectacles few off. Someone found them and passed them to her before they got out. She didn’t know who that was, and she couldn’t see much without them.
Ms Mogan showed the court the clip from the prosecution compilation from inside the loading bay as the red team get out of the van. Ms Rogers was the last person to get out – she’d struggled to get the sledgehammer out, to get the bag on her back, and to get through the door. She described her state as very stressed.
Once inside she dropped her bag, and carried the sledgehammer, even though it was really heavy. Ms Rogers said it was stuck in her head that they would use sledgehammers so didn’t really think to swap it to something smaller.
In the compilation footage, we see Mr. Luke moving out through a door just as Ms Rogers appears – she thinks she saw him from quite far away at that moment. The next section shows her with Mr. Devlin by the door that Mr Luke had exited, and she says that they were trying to find a way to block the door. The door didn’t have handles they could use rope on, and they dragged a pallet in front at that point (which she realises was a bit futile).
At this stage, Ms Rogers couldn’t remember if anyone had managed to smash anything.
Ms Mogan then played the unedited footage from Mr Volante’s body-worn video camera, where he runs in screaming at the protesters with a whip in his hand. Ms Rogers said she was terrified – she didn’t even notice the whip, but his face and eyes looked really scary. She thought he was unhinged and prepared to do anything – he reminded her of David Tennant’s character in Harry Potter – tongue out and shaking.
Playing part of the footage again slowly, Volante is seen with a sledgehammer. Ms Rogers described that she swung her sledgehammer in front of her to keep him away. She remembered shouting at him when he first came in. She swung her sledgehammer in front in order to provide herself more protection, as she was terrified by Volante.
Ms Mogan points out that Ms Rogers swung her hammer a second time in front of her. She explained that both times, Volante had a clear sightline to her and she was frightened he would run at her. She was ‘hyperaware’ of how vulnerable she was and how vulnerable she looked. When she shouted “Get out of here”, Ms Mogan asked if Ms Rogers was trying to intimidate Volante, but she said she weighed 45kg at the time, and just wanted him to leave – she didn’t think for a moment that her shouting could intimidate him.
Asked if she remembered seeing Mr Volante kick out at Mr Devlin, Ms Rogers said she’s seen it on the video but didn’t remember if she’d seen it at the time.
Ms Mogan plays through some of the video frame by frame, and asked if Volante had swung the sledgehammer at anyone. Ms Rogers said she said she couldn’t remember what he did specifically, just that he appeared so unpredictable and violent. One frame shows Ms Rogers with her sledgehammer raised, and she explains at that moment she was using her arm to shield her own face. She remembers Volante grabbed the sledgehammer off her and pulled her to the floor. She says she was terrified he was going to kick her. Because she was in such a state, she’s a bit unclear how long she was on the floor – she thought it was ‘ages’.
Next, Ms Mogan shows the interaction between Ms Kamio, Ms Head, Mr Corner and the security guard Mr Shaw. Ms Rogers thinks she was still on the floor for a while, and the compilation shows her arriving there later. The interaction with Shaw takes place in the alcove, which would have been covered by the CCTV footage from cameras 22 and 23 (as mentioned earlier in the trial, there appears to be nothing available from these). The compilation shows Ms Rogers moving towards that area, and she explains she was trying to stay well away from where Mr Volante had been and just went towards other members of the red team to be near them.
With still a bit more evidence to examine, Ms Mogan asked whether it would be a good time to break for lunch. Judge Johnson didn’t seem very pleased, telling her she was taking longer than he’d been led to believe. She said she thought it would only take around another half hour after lunch.
—-
After the break, Ms Mogan played footage of the interaction with Mr Shaw, from the prosecution compilation. Ms Rogers said it was her first interaction with him, and she is heard asking the question “Can you get out that way?” When Mr Shaw says he is a ‘casual worker’ (and so doesn’t have a card to swipe the door – which he later told the court was not true), Ms Rogers is heard asking him to leave, and mentions that he is hurt, asks if he is OK, and shows him another way out via the shutter. She confirms that she didn’t raise her voice and was worried for him. Asked about her sledgehammer, she said she might have moved it around in her hands because it was really heavy, but she didn’t swing it any point.
Ms Mogan asked Ms Rogers what she thought had caused Mr Shaw’s injury – she confirmed that it hadn’t occurred to her it could be due to any interaction with protesters, inside or out.
Asked why she then followed Mr Corner, she explained she just wanted to be away from any security, even Mr Shaw, and near someone from the red team. She didn’t think she’d seen the next interaction between Mr Luke and Ms Kamio near the door with the pallet, but footage next shows her with Ms Kamio and Ms Rajwani. She remembers saying to one of them that ‘there was a security guard who looks like he’s trying to kill us’. She is speaking about Mr Volante, but she doesn’t remember seeing him return at that point.
The next bit of footage shows Volante approached by Ms Kamio and Mr Devlin. Ms Rogers doesn’t remember much about this period, describing herself as frightened and just wanting to stick together with the others. On the one hand she was terrified of Volante, but also didn’t want to leave others alone with him because he might attack them.
After this, Ms Rogers remembers finding some drones with Ms Rajwani and Ms Head. Photographs from the evidence show red paint sprayed around the warehouse from one of the converted fire extinguishers. Ms Rogers explained that red paint is used to symbolise the blood of Palestinian people that Elbit profit from, but that she didn’t spray anything herself. There are more photos of the Elbit drones. Ms Rogers described the Thor drones dropping explosive grenades which shoot out pellets that bounce around in bodies, ripping up multiple organs. She confirms she managed to destroy some of them.
As the police arrived, Ms Rogers was helping Ms Kamio by spraying a foam fire extinguisher on the equipment she had smashed. She described falling over on the slippery floor at around the time of her arrest by APS Evans. She heard Ms Kamio screaming and in a lot of pain, and so didn’t see anything else that was going on. She heard about the allegation against Mr Corner when she was at the police station.
The medical record at the police station described Ms Rogers as shocked. She said she was confused, overwhelmed and in shock, especially over the terrorism arrest.
She didn’t expect to be put on remand, and was horrified while in prison, that people on social media were describing her as a ‘terrorist’.
Ms Mogan asked her about a poem she wrote in prison. She recited the first line:
“When they ask me why I did it, I tell them about the children”,
and then one of the last lines:
“But I never forget to say that it was love, not hate, that called me”.
She explained that she was motivated by a love for Palestinian people, and a desire for their freedom from apartheid and occupation and genocide, not any kind of hatred of security guards.
Finishing her defence evidence, Ms Rogers was asked whether she’d had any intention to hurt or threaten or intimidate anyone in the factory when she entered the factory, and had no plan to threaten or use a sledgehammer against anyone. She said she had gone to the factory in order to save as many lives as she could.
—
Ms Kamio’s defence barrister, Ms Hammad asked Zoe Rogers to confirm that the edited BWV footage from the security guards was first served in November 2024 (three months after the action), followed by the CCTV footage nearly a year on, in July 2025. Ms Rogers also acknowledged that the unedited footage from the BWVs was not made available until after the start of this trial, and that it was only during the trial that anything was disclosed about the missing CCTV camera footage or footage that wasn’t collected.
So the first time Ms Rogers knew there was footage of Mr Volante running into the warehouse with a whip in his hand was during this trial, and she had no idea that there was no footage collected from CCTV cameras pointed at the alcove.
Mr Devlin’s defence barrister, Mr Morris, asked if Ms Rogers knew whether Mr Devlin had ever protested with Palestine Action before. She didn’t think so, because he’d never been arrested. Mr Morris asked Ms Rogers what she thought Mr Volante was going to do when he ran into the factory with the whip in his hand shouting “You’re being recorded” and she said she didn’t know but that he had run straight into Mr Devlin. The barrister asked her whether Mr Volante had given any warning, and she confirmed that he hadn’t, and that because he’d used force immediately against Devlin, she was immediately scared he would hurt her too. She said she was surprised that had happened, and also told the court that Mr Devlin had effectively been protecting her as much as he could, standing between her and Mr Volante throughout most of the interaction, but she honestly couldn’t remember whether she’d seen Volante hit Devlin on his right arm, as alleged, although it ‘wouldn’t surprise’ her.
With the defence case at an end, Ms Rogers faced cross-examination from the prosecution.
—
Ms Heer began by asking whether it would be frightening to have a sledgehammer swung at her. Ms Rogers said it depended who was swinging it, for instance if a child who could hardly lift it was doing so, it wouldn’t. Asked if she’d swung a hammer at Mr Volante, she said it wasn’t at him, but she was swinging it in front of her.
Ms Heer asked Ms Rogers about how she was given information through several meetings prior to the action. Ms Rogers reaffirmed that she’d been drip-fed details along the way. The barrister highlighted that Ms Rogers purchased a ticket to Bristol on 28th July, and that on the same day she had ‘googled’ prison vans. Two days earlier, a defendant in a later trial had taken reconnaissance photographs at Filton. Ms Heer suggested that Ms Rogers therefore knew about security guards at Filton, and also knew she would be taking sledgehammers and rope, but when asked what the sledgehammers would be used for Ms Rogers replied they were for smashing equipment.
Ms Heer asked at what point Ms Rogers had heard mention of ‘aggravated burglary’ as a potential charge. Ms Rogers said she had a couple of catch-up meetings on Signal because she had missed other meetings. She couldn’t remember if the prison preparation meeting wasn’t organised by Filton organisers, but had a talk from someone who had been in prison. The legal meeting was probably arranged by Filton organisers, and Ms Rogers confirmed that was when she heard about “aggravated burglary” but in the context that it wouldn’t end up being charged, and was just a “scare tactic”. Ms Rogers said the word “aggravated” sounded scarier than ordinary burglary, but she was told not to worry about it. The meeting covered the whole procedure of arrest and so on, over a period of around an hour.
Ms Heer then referenced the ‘preparing for prison’ section of the Cryptpad document, and although it wasn’t clear which meeting had come first, Ms Rogers thought the prison one was probably second. She repeated that because she had no previous charges, she’d understood that prison would be unlikely. The document mentions “when the cells begin to fill up, Actionists are on to a win”. Asked what this meant to her, Ms Rogers she was a terrible reader, didn’t remember reading that, and had probably skipped it. She referred again to the advice specific to her about not having a previous record, and so it wouldn’t be likely to apply.
Ms Heer asked if she’d read more of the guide, and when she said she’d skimmed through it, followed up by asking whether it was because Ms Rogers knew she might go to prison. Again, Ms Rogers said she hadn’t thought so.
The prosecution barrister referred to the handwritten notes Ms Rogers had made about prison rights, requesting a rule book, phone numbers for complaints, and other useful info for people going to prison, including about books, medication, getting a prison number etc. Ms Rogers said she’d copied it all down from other documents, because she was aware there was a tiny chance of prison, but it was really part of preparing generally as something useful to do and to calm her mind.
Ms Heer put it to Ms Rogers that she knew she would likely be imprisoned as a result of the action, but Ms Rogers pointed out that she had booked a holiday and had her place at university the next month and really didn’t consider that a big possibility.
The barrister referred again to notes in the planning documents that she proposed would have been covered as part of that final meeting at the AirBnB, which included ‘taking on security’, and ‘high risk of remand’, but Ms Rogers maintained that she didn’t remember being told that and did not expect any length of time in prison.
Ms Heer then asked why she had been trying to get the sledgehammer out of her bag on the journey. She said it was caught under the fire extinguisher. Ms Heer asked why it was needed so early, and Ms Rogers said she just wanted to have it prepared. The barrister said there were also small hammers and crowbars available, and asked why Ms Rogers didn’t take one of these out. Ms Rogers agreed it would have made more sense, but it was stuck in her mind because of a story about Ploughshares women who practised with sledgehammers before smashing up military weaponry. Ms Rogers said this had been the thing she’d focussed on.
Ms Heers suggested sledgehammers had the advantage of weight, and also that swinging them around might frighten someone. Ms Rogers said that had not been in her mind at any point.
The court was shown once more some of the prosecution footage, of Mr Luke backing out of the warehouse. Ms Rogers is seen arriving behind the others with sledgehammer in hand. She said that at that point she didn’t want to be alone, and just followed the others. She said there was good distance between her and the guard, and she could hardly see him. Ms Heer asked why she hadn’t just started smashing up property. She responded that it was because the security guard was there, which she hadn’t expected, and so she was distracted. Ms Heer again suggests Ms Rogers is walking towards him with her sledgehammer, and she replied she was simply following everyone else, and didn’t want to be on her own.
—
After a short mid-afternoon break, Ms Heer moved on to the moment Mr Volante entered the factory, and asked Ms Rogers whether at that point she was stressed out by the fact security had entered the factory. The reference to David Tennant was something that occurred to her much later, she said, but when Mr Volante came in screaming, and barrelling into Mr Devlin, Ms Rogers remembered being terrified. Ms Heer asked if Zoe had heard Volante shouting “You’re being recorded” and she agreed she had.
Playing the footage, Ms Heer suggests that Ms Rogers stepped towards Volante and swung her sledgehammer. Zoe replied that she thought he was going to attack her like he had attacked Mr Devlin – she said swinging the hammer in front of her was an attempt to try and be intimidating, to keep him away from her. Volante grabs the hammer off her and she falls over. Then Ms Heer played the sequence showing Ms Rogers picking up the other sledgehammer off the floor. The BWV footage swings around a lot, but appears to show Mr Devlin and Mr Volante struggling over a sledgehammer. Ms Rogers said she thought it looked like Volante is holding the handle against Devlin’s neck. Next Ms Rogers is seen swinging the hammer in front of her once more, but the momentum of it swings her around. When Volante tells her to put the hammer down, Ms Heer asks Ms Rogers why she didn’t just put it down and turn it away. Ms Rogers replies that Volante is swinging the head of the hammer around, and if they turned their backs on him, she felt he would have carried on attacking them.
Ms Heer asks whether Volante would have been intimidated by them, but Ms Rogers maintains he wouldn’t have been frightened by them. He is heard shouting “Don’t swing that sledgehammer at me”, and Ms Rogers replies “Get out of here and I won’t”. When quoted and asked about this by Ms Heer, Ms Rogers says that it was a completely empty threat.
Ms Heer suggests they could have stopped and backed away, but Zoe insists she was acting in self-defence and didn’t feel safe putting the hammer down and walking away.
Ms Heer suggests there is a point in the footage that shows Mr Volante holding a sledgehammer in one hand, while grabbing the hammer she is holding, and Mr Devlin is holding on to Volante’s hammer and grabbing his wrist. Ms Rogers remembers that was the moment she was pulled to the floor.
Mr Volante’s BWV has stopped recording at this point for some reason, but CCTV shows Mr Devlin in close quarters with Volante as other red team members arrive.
The next footage shows Ms Rogers getting back up off the floor and she is asked whether she saw Mr Corner holding his sledgehammer raised between two hands near the other security guard, Mr Shaw. Shaw’s BWV shows Ms Rogers in the distance along the corridor, and Ms Heer asks whether she saw Mr Corner raise his sledgehammer. She says it was some distance away, and didn’t remember that, but then Ms Rogers is seen going over to Mr Corner. Ms Heer suggests she was going to help Mr Corner, but Ms Rogers thought it might have been just to move away from Mr Volante.
Ms Rogers also says she was aware Shaw was bleeding and was worried for him. She is seen holding her sledgehammer and Ms Heer asks why she hadn’t just put it down, got a lighter tool, and got on with smashing equipment. Ms Rogers says she wasn’t going to put the hammer down because Mr Volante might get it and attack people – she was still very scared. Ms Heer suggests there was nothing to prevent her leaving, but Ms Rogers says the most logical thing seemed to be to stay with others because she didn’t know where she would go.
Next on the footage we hear Ms Kamio calling Mr Corner. He turns to go to her, and Ms Rogers follows him. Corner starts shouting at Mr Luke, and Ms Heer suggests he was raising his sledgehammer, but Ms Rogers says she really couldn’t remember that and just ran that way towards the shouting. Ms Heer points out that Mr Shaw hasn’t threatened her, and asks why is she going towards Volante? Ms Rogers repeats that she’s too scared to go anywhere on her own, to go and look for Ms Rajwani, or to stay near Mr Shaw.
Next, Ms Rogers is seen together with Devlin, Kamio and Rajwani, and she appears to walk towards Volante when he appears. Ms Rogers said she hadn’t realised he was in that direction, and that she froze when she saw him again. Ms Kamio is seen walking in front of her then, and the three of them (with Devlin) walk towards Volante again. Ms Rogers explains again that she has no idea where any security are because of the barriers, and she simply doesn’t want to be on her own.
Ms Heers suggests Volante would have found the three of them intimidating, but Ms Rogers says that security knew that Palestine Action were only there to smash equipment, and not to intimidate anyone, and that she thought they would just call the police. She said the choice to put down sledgehammers and move away was not an option because Volante appeared so unpredictable.
As the questions moved towards the point of arrest, Ms Rogers was asked whether she saw Mr Corner swing his hammer at any police. At that point, both she and the police officer had slipped onto the floor, and she was focussed on Ms Kamio and was not aware of anything Mr Corner was doing.
Ms Heer suggested that Ms Rogers’ memory was selective, but she said the video showed her facing away from APS Evans and Sam Corner, and repeats that she was overwhelmed and focussing on ‘Ellie’.
Summing up, Ms Heer suggested that Ms Rogers knew full well when she went into the factory that they had sledgehammers not just to smash things up, but to threaten people and if necessary hurt them too. Ms Rogers said “no, that was never the intention”.
Asked about the ‘no comment’ interview she’d given, Ms Rogers responded as the others have, that she was following the advice of her solicitor. Ms Heer suggested that Ms Rogers had stitched together a careful account after watching the CCTV footage, and that she could have told police what she remembered at the time, because memory gets worse not better.
Ms Rogers said that she had done her best to remember everything now.
—
In re-examination defence barrister Ms Mogan replayed the footage and asked Ms Rogers what she had been able to see in the second incident with Mr Volante. There is a green smoke flare in the footage (which Ms Rogers didn’t remember), and Ms Mogan asks her at what point she saw Mr Volante in the alcove. She replied that she’d only seen him later in the office space, which is when she froze.
Ms Mogan asked how easy it was to swing the sledgehammer, and Ms Rogers said it was difficult, relying on its inertia when she started moving it.
Finally, asked about the reference to the David Tennant character, Ms Rogers said that Volante just appeared unhinged and was sticking his tongue out in a similar way to the character.
To complete the case for Ms Rogers, Ms Mogan read out three character witness statements.
The first was from a close friend who had heard about the charges and remand, describing her as kind, gentle and compassionate, caring for social justice and wanting to build a better world. He said he didn’t know anyone with a bad thing to say about her, and that she’d had an outpouring of support at college, including a teacher who joined protests in support of her. Due to her autism and ADHD she could be shy and reserved, but without a doubt the most peaceful and unproblematic person he’d known. She was always a shoulder to cry on, and a great mediator. He described a situation at college where a classmate had felt picked on by a teacher, and because of her own neurodivergence, she’d realised the pupil was dyslexic and explained this, helping find a resolution which benefited them both. Her own desire to learn about the world propelled her into the college access course despite her social anxiety, and she was looking forward to going to university after gaining consistently excellent grades. He described her as ‘the very best of us all’.
A second statement came from a Senior Tutor at Morley College, where she was personal tutor to Zoe on her access course studying Humanities and Social Science. She said Zoe was an exemplary student winning a now-deferred place at university through hard work. She described Zoe as always considerate and thoughtful, with a respectful and non-confrontational nature. Her university place is something she deeply values, in order to continue her education and contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Zoe’s mother wrote the last statement. Claire Rogers has a senior role in a charity campaigning for active travel and road safety. She describes Zoe’s defining characteristic as a passion for social justice, and how people can bring change to create a better, fairer world. Always learning, Zoe has read over 120 books while in prison, and while at Morley College, she extended her studies from politics, sociology, and history, to read about economics, homelessness, racism, slavery, colonialism, non-violent direct action and so on. Despite sometimes crippling social anxiety, she volunteered weekly at their church, cooking and serving food for homeless people. She described that in prison Zoe has helped others with English and maths, and gave her fruit away to a pregnant woman in Bronzefield, even though fruit is hard to come by in prison. Zoe learnt about Israel’s oppression of Palestinian people, seeking out reliable sources, and was appalled by what she was seeing unfold – the sheer number of civilian deaths and the cruelty of the Israeli military. The statement concluded “She might be the bravest and most selfless person I know. I am very proud to be her mother”.
—
With the case for Ms Rogers at an end, Mr Morris rose and asked for a short discussion with his client Mr Devlin without the jury, after which he returned with the surprise news that Mr Devlin had decided not to give any evidence.
—
On their return Judge Johnson gave the jury the news about Mr Devlin, telling them that choosing to not to give evidence without good reason, they could later be directed that they may draw adverse inferences against him. Mr Morris then confirmed Mr Devlin’s decision to the court.
The jury were told that they would hear Mr Devlin’s character witness statements [See below] to finish a rather long day, but that would then mean that all the evidence would have been heard and the trial can break for the holiday and resume in the new year.
Before the jury were released defence barrister Mr Menon reminded them that during Ms Head’s evidence reference was made to a Guardian article about her work in Calais. This was added to their evidence bundle as it had been overlooked at the time.
Judge Johnson explained to the jury the next steps in the trial. First, they will hear his legal directions. After that there will be a statement from the prosecution, and then statements on behalf of each of the defendants. The judge will then give a summary before they retire to consider their verdicts. He reminded them not to research the case or look at any coverage, and asked them to return on Tuesday 6th of January.
Mr Devlin’s Character Witness Statements:
The court first heard from a work colleague and line manager at an art foundry who described Jordan as consistently reliable, dedicated, and serious about his responsibilities. He is a thoughtful and conscientious individual with a calm manner, and a willingness to help others, never known to act aggressively or recklessly, and nothing in his conduct at work suggested that he posed any kind of risk to others. His non-judgmental and civil attitude was illustrated by his willingness to engage with a broad range of people, from the homeless or those with mental health difficulties, to work clients who were in the Conservative Party or ex-British military who’d served in Northern Ireland, treating them all with the same jovial and civil attitude. Devlin was described as never extreme in his views or hostile in character.
The next statement was from an Oxford academic who is now the director of a video games company, and who has known Jordan since primary school. He described that Jordan had always been interested in nature and the well-being of the planet and that this presented in his creativity and sustainable practices of furniture upcycling, and his veganism. They both volunteered at the local youth club, and Jordan ran arts and crafts workshops. He had recently applied for and been offered a job at Greenpeace. It was shocking to hear he had been arrested and remanded in custody on extremely serious charges, because he’d never been in any trouble before, even for the slightest misdemeanour.
A third statement was from an ex-partner who remains a good friend, who described Jordan as the most fundamentally uncomplicatedly kind person they’d ever known, whose sense of justice and his desire to help others always takes precedent even over any sense of self-preservation. They described how Jordan had helped them through their own mental struggles, and that they believed Jordan is a danger to absolutely nobody, absolutely no one.
The next statement was from another long-term close friend, who said Jordan was an outstanding example of decency and a welcoming and trustworthy person bringing out the best qualities in all those who cross paths with him. He described Jordan as someone who is very much against conflict of any sort, even on multiple occasions putting himself in harm’s way to break up and de-escalate physical altercations, brilliant at de-escalation and calming situations.
The final testament was from a music teacher, ex-partner and close friend. She said that Jordan is known for his love of music, his compassion and kind, gentle demeanour, and always a powerful advocate for the oppressed, fighting injustice in any way he could. She also described his creativity – living in a house share in Stoke Newington, he cared daily for a beautiful vegetable garden on his roof, and his room was a testament to his creativity – paintings, carpentry projects and shelves all made by him. She finished by stating she had not once known him to be violent with another person, nor seen him come even close to provoking another person. She said it’s simply not in his nature to do so, Jordan is not violent, and she would trust her life in his hands.
—-
A very unwelcome surprise to defendants was the news that the four female defendants would be moved from Bronzefield prison to Peterborough in Cambridgeshire. Although the jury will not be present tomorrow, there are still some legal issues being discussed, and now those four young women will either face a very long journey to court to speak with their lawyers, or they will just have to observe over a video link.
Barristers described the decision as cruel and unnecessary, and were concerned that beacuse they had not been told in advance, the young women would not have their personal effects or some of their legal papers with them, as they were fully expecting to return to Bronzefield tonight.
IN-DEPTH COVERAGE RESUMES IN THE NEW YEAR WITH WEEK SIX
