[Previous coverage – Week 1, Week 2, Week 3, Week 4 and Week 5]
DAY 19 – TUESDAY 6th January 2026
We left the trial before the break with the surprise news that the sixth defendant Jordan Devlin had decided not to give any evidence. Also, defence barristers were told without notice that the four female defendants were being moved straight from the court to Peterborough prison in Cambridgeshire – a decision they described as unnecessarily cruel.
While the jury were away, Mr Justice Johnson heard defendants’ bail applications on behalf of Kamran Ahmed, Teuta Hoxta and Qeeser Zurha, three of the so-called Filton24 who are currently on hunger strike. The court also heard an application from the prosecution to extend custody time limits on members of the so-called Filton 24 who are currently held on remand, including the six on trial who have been held in prison since August 2023.
The three bail applications were refused, and the custody time limit extended currently to mid-February.
This week, the judge will give the jury a legal summary, and explain a series of questions they must ask themselves (known as the ‘Route To Verdict’). The prosecution will then set out their case, persuading the jury to convict. Each defence barrister will then present the defence case for each defendant in turn. Finally, before the jury retire to consider their verdict, the judge will give his own summary of the evidence they have heard and remind them of their role. This is likely to take at least to the end of the week and possibly into early next week, and then it’s over to the jurors to decide.
So this morning, after welcoming the jury back from the break and apologising for the extremely cold courtroom, the judge began by telling them that the judge and the jury have different functions – the judge describes the law in this case and the questions they must ask themselves. They must follow the law, but can decide for themselves which evidence is reliable and what is not. They don’t need to decide every disputed fact – only those necessary to reach answers in the route to verdict. There are some things that are not disputed, such as the ‘agreed facts’ – that the defendants entered the building without permission and that they were carrying sledgehammers, and that at least some of them damaged Elbit property. There’s no dispute that none of them have previous convictions or cautions, so are of ‘good character’. What is in dispute is whether the defendants had ‘weapons of offence’, claiming that they were carrying the sledgehammers only to damage property and not to injure anyone. They also say they were unaware of the whips and other weapons the black team may have had.
Where there’s conflicting evidence, the jury must weigh up how reliable, accurate and honest each witness is, on both sides, and can draw any sensible conclusions but must not guess or speculate.
It’s also up to the jury how important any piece of evidence is, and just because the judge doesn’t mention it, they mustn’t assume it’s not important, or vice versa.
If they feel the judge is expressing a view, they can disagree with it, because it is THEIR view that is important. Likewise, the prosecution and defence summaries will contain arguments that are very different, and it’s up to the jury to decide which they agree with – the arguments themselves are NOT evidence.
The ‘Route To Verdict’ document is a set of questions to answer in order, which is meant to correctly take account of the law and the jury’s conclusions about the evidence.
The judge reminded the jury that the burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. In other words, if they are not sure the case is proven, they must find ‘not guilty’.
Each defendant must be considered separately – there are three counts against each, and a fourth against Samuel Corner – and the verdicts don’t have to be the same on all counts or for each defendant.
The prosecution allege that this is also a joint enterprise – meaning that a defendant can also be guilty of an offence if they assisted or encouraged someone else to carry out the offence, even if they didn’t commit it themselves.
The first charge is AGGRAVATED BURGLARY, and the judge explained this as having a ‘weapon of offence’ on them when they enter a building without permission and with the intent to cause criminal damage. The legal meaning of ‘weapon of offence’ requires that at the time of entry to the building, the item is intended to injure or incapacitate someone, not just frighten or threaten them.
There’s no dispute that the defendants were carrying sledgehammers when they entered, and that they were going to be used to damage property. The question arises whether they thought they might need to use them to injure or incapacitate security as well. If they only turned to that thought after entering and being challenged, then that is not enough.
The second count is CRIMINAL DAMAGE, and of course the law stipulates ‘criminal damage without lawful excuse’. The judge said that in this case if a defendant felt morally justified in doing what they did to prevent what they thought was a genocide, then that would NOT amount to a lawful excuse, and there is no evidence in this case of anything that is capable in law of amounting to a lawful excuse.
The third charge is VIOLENT DISORDER. In law, this requires that a person is present with two or more others and threatened or used unlawful violence (or assisted or encouraged at least three others to do so), and if their conduct as a group would cause a reasonable person at the scene to fear for their safety. The judge described the ‘reasonable person’ as a hypothetical person who seeing the actions of the group without any prior knowledge of Elbit or Palestine Action would fear for their safety. In current law, violence includes any violent conduct against property as well as persons, whether or not any injury or damage was caused, and unlawful violence is violence (or threat of violence) not in self-defence or defence of another. [More on that proviso below.]
One defendant, Samuel Corner, is also charged with CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM WITH INTENT, meaning causing really serious harm to another, and intending to do so, without any lawful excuse i.e. self-defence or defence of another.
The judge explained there’s no dispute that Mr Corner struck police officer Evans and caused the injuries set out in agreed facts. The prosecution say the injury was really serious harm, and that he intended to cause it by swinging the sledgehammer, and that it wasn’t in defence of another. Mr Corner doesn’t accept any of these three elements. This might mean the jury have to consider different elements accordingly and might find him guilty of ‘lesser’ crimes, namely:
- attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (but causing lesser harm)
- inflicting grievous bodily harm (without intending such serious harm)
- assault occasioning actual bodily harm (less than serious harm and no intention to cause serious harm)
The ‘Route To Verdict’ should help with arriving at a verdict on this.
Both counts 3 and 4 rely on the violence being unlawful, and in this case the only lawful excuse would be self-defence or defence of another. The judge explained that unless the prosecution has proved to the jury that each defendant was NOT acting in self-defence or defence of another then they must be acquitted. The defendant does not have to prove they WERE acting in self-defence etc.
On count 4, the prosecution must prove that Mr Corner was not acting in self-defence of another, and this would apply to the lesser crimes mentioned above.
On count 3, the prosecution say that the black team outside the building used violence against security guards, that the red team used violence against property in the building, and also against security and police. The prosecution must prove any violence was not used in self-defence or defence of another.
The judge reminded the jury that the defendants knew they were on Elbit’s property without permission, and that that gave security and police the power to use ‘reasonable force’ to stop them and require them to leave.
If a defendant honestly believed that security or police were using unnecessary or excessive force then they would have a right to respond with reasonable force, even if that belief was mistaken. However, if the force they used themselves was excessive or unreasonable, then they have no defence of self-defence or defence of another. The jury must take into account all the circumstances and remember it’s not easy to make precise judgements in a fast-moving situation. With that in mind, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each defendant either did NOT believe they or another person were under attack, or, that the defendant used more than reasonable force in response.
As mentioned above, to help the jury through the process of reaching a verdict within the law as it stands, they were each given the ‘Route To Verdict’ document which you can read here. The judge took the jury through the document with some extra comments, namely suggesting that the first questions, relating to Aggravated Burglary, at 1.1 and 1.2 were “unlikely to cause any difficulty”, but confirming that section 1.3 was very much in dispute.
On Criminal Damage, the judge again suggested that both 2.1 and 2.2, although up to the jury, “may not cause any difficulty”, strongly implying that a guilty verdict would be the right one.
After reading through the Route To Verdict, the judge addressed the jury on the need to ignore any bias, emotion, sympathy, prejudice or political views. Referring to “events in the Middle East”, he said they could give rise to feelings of emotions and sympathy to those “who support one side or the other”, but that the jury had taken an oath and must decide what happened in accordance with that jury oath.
This is an instruction often given to juries in accordance with law, but was of course challenged over recent years by climate activists calling on juries to also remember their right to acquit on their conscience. The government attempted to prosecute activists for holding placards to that effect outside courts, but this failed in April last year, when retired social worker Trudi Warner won a High Court ruling that described the Attorney General’s contempt of court case against her as fanciful and without merit.
During the course of that hearing it emerged that there is a kind of unwritten agreement that judges and barristers never inform juries of this right, and jurors are of course encouraged to reach verdicts based solely on the law of the land and on the evidence they have heard, but that they still have the inalienable right to acquit in cases where their conscience cannot let them simply decide on law alone. It has been suggested that perhaps the global climate crisis, or a continuing genocide, might be the trigger for such responses.
Heading towards the end of his legal summary the judge reminded the jury that statements read out in court without calling the witness were amongst agreed facts between the parties, and should be treated the same way as if they had attended, and also that any witnesses giving evidence behind screens should be treated the same as others.
He also addressed the medical diagnoses of Mr Corner and Ms Rogers, and went through the various ways that autism and ADHD might affect their delivery in the witness box, warning the jury not to hold any of their perceived traits against them.
The judge told the jury that all the defendants had ‘good character’ – no previous convictions or cautions – and that this might be taken into account while assessing their evidence. He also spoke about their decision to make ‘no comment’ in police interviews, which he said could draw adverse inference. The prosecution, he said, had suggested that each defendant had had opportunity to mention things which they later used in their defence. He gave examples for each defendant, but as this will no doubt be part of the prosecution’s summary later we’ll deal with them below. He said the jury would have to consider three things. First, that when the defendant was interviewed, they could reasonably have been expected to mention the facts on which they now rely. Second – the only explanation for their failure to mention the facts is that they had no answer at the time, or none that would stand up to scrutiny. Third – that the prosecution case put to the defendant in interview was so strong that it clearly needed an answer from them. If the jury reaches any of those conclusions, it doesn’t mean they should convict on that basis, but that they should take it into account as part of the prosecution’s case. Each defendant gave reasons why they made no comment, on top of the advice given by their solicitors. Among them, Ms Head said she was in shock and crying after being detained under counter-terrorism powers, and Mr Corner said he had already explained on his arrest why he’d hit Ms Evans but then followed his solicitor’s advice. Mr Justice Johnson said that if the jurors accepted the explanations given, they should not make any inference about the defendants’ silence, but otherwise, they may consider it as described above. He did warn however, that the explanation of following a solicitor’s advice doesn’t automatically stop any adverse conclusion being made if the jury consider they are using the advice as a shield simply because they had no satisfactory answer to give.
Turning to Mr Devlin’s decision not to give any evidence, the judge said it was up to the jury to decide whether that should count against him, and whether they believe the prosecution case is so strong as to require an answer, or that he didn’t stand because he knew he wouldn’t be able to give a satisfactory answer in cross-examination. Ultimately, the prosecution must prove guilt, and his refusal to stand is not a reason to automatically convict.
After telling the jury to elect a foreman who would be responsible for chairing discussion and ensuring everyone has a say, and urging them to ignore anything they’ve heard about ‘majority verdicts’ telling them they must attempt to reach a unanimous decision, the judge called for a short mid-morning break ahead of the prosecution summary.
————————
MID-MORNING BREAK
————————
After the break Ms Heer began her SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE:
On 6th Aug 2024 the defendants broke into Elbit’s factory knowing they were trespassing – that’s not in dispute. They planned to commit criminal damage and have admitted as much and have told you in evidence that that is what they planned and intended to do. Mr Devlin was part of that plan and he has not challenged this.
They were doing so because of what they believed Elbit’s connection with the events of Gaza was. You may think that their views are justified and that Israel is guilty of genocide – you may disagree. You may think that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas. You may despair of the whole situation in the Middle East. But for the purposes of this trial your views don’t matter, because you have to judge this case on what the defendants believed at the time and what they planned and intended.
We do not dispute that their deeply-held beliefs were that, after failing to change policy through lawful means, they needed to act unlawfully. Even if the defendants were motivated to prevent horrible crimes in the Middle East, that wouldn’t provide them with a defence in law to these charges, but it might explain their state of mind, and what they intended to do that night.
They intended to destroy weapons, and also to obtain information about other companies so that Palestine Action could add them to their list of targets in this country.
We submit they also were prepared to go further and injure people if necessary, in order to “Shut Elbit Down”.
We say they knew people might be there trying to stop them. When you take unlawful action you can’t call the police – you have to escalate, not de-escalate. This is why each member of the red team carried a sledgehammer, and they were quick to use those sledgehammers against security guards, and when intimidation was not enough, they then resorted to violence. This ended with the fracture to Ms Evans’ spine.
The planning documents show what they intended to do that night – we submit there is no room for doubt that each defendant is guilty as charged.
I’m going to keep the evidence to a minimum because you’ve seen so much, but I’ll give you references if you need to look at them again.
There are four counts, but I’ll start with count 2 – because there’s been no real challenge to the prosecution’s evidence, and it informs the approach to the other counts. Each defendant frankly and explicitly admitted damaging equipment and/or encouraging others to do so.
Charlotte Head took an active role in planning the action, travelling and obtaining the prison van to smash the fence and shutter and get the red team into the factory. She also booked the BnB accommodation – the safe house. She drove all the participants to the factory and into the premises. She admitted damaging a range of equipment, and boasted on a video recording published on social media, and admitted intending to destroy as much Elbit equipment as she could.
Samuel Corner went that night with a GoPro to record the damage that they had planned, and he admitted to causing damage, including tipping over shelves, destroying the toilet to cause a flood and smashing a fusebox. He acted to keep security guards at bay “in order to prevent them stopping the action”.
Leona Kamio drove the day before to scope the route in and to help others cut a hole in the fence. She rented the Enterprise van and drove that. She is seen smashing equipment at the factory and told us that she smashed up drones. She also tried to keep security guards at bay.
Fatima Zainab Rajwani also wore a GoPro to record the destruction, filmed herself damaging Elbit’s products, and admitted smashing equipment. Her objective she said was to put the site out of commission for as long as possible. She also helped keep security guards at bay with the others.
Zoe Rogers signed up for an action to damage Elbit property – she admitted the plan was to stay as long as possible to smash up property and admitted damaging equipment, including dowsing computers with a fire extinguisher. She also kept security guards at bay.
Jordan Devlin has made no admissions, but the evidence of his co-accused show he planned the same as the others, and he was involved in purchasing equipment at ScrewFix which was later used to enter the factory and damage equipment. He also tried to stop security guards by blocking a door with a pallet, and he tried to keep security guards at bay and also held PC Buxton on the ground to prevent him arresting others. He is heard telling security guard Volante that “this place won’t exist tomorrow”. He has never denied intending to damage property. The answers to the questions on criminal damage in the route to verdict must, on all of this evidence, be yes.
On the count of violent disorder, you may also have little difficulty concluding they are all guilty. The defendants acted together with the other members of the red team, and also with the black team. They threatened or intentionally encouraged others to act in a way that a reasonable person would fear for their safety. First, the jury must consider whether three or more persons were involved – the evidence suggests realistically that there is no doubt. They were present together with the black team and acting together with one another. They arrived together as members of Palestine Action with the same plan and purpose. Did they use or threaten unlawful violence intending to do so, or encourage others to do so? There are various ways you can approach this question – it can include violence against property as well as persons. So you can consider if they were part of a group acting to cause violence against property – smashing the fences, the shutter and equipment. You might consider a reasonable bystander would fear for their safety and stay well out of the way. Because none of the defendants have suggested that violence against property was in self-defence or defence of another, that’s sufficient for you to find them guilty.
But the prosecution suggest they also used or encourage others to use unlawful violence against people. We suggest each member of the red team did, and will show that by going through the relevant footage when considering count one which we’ll return to later.
They may also be guilty because of what the black team did outside – because they were part of the same action that night with all members of Palestine Action. They were certainly all involved in violence against property or had encouraged or assisted it through their involvement in the planning. The prosecution say that the black team fired flares not just into the sky but in the direction of security guards – they were shouting, swearing, brandishing weapons and cracking whips – none of that was lawful or in self-defence and was intended to be threatening. So in respect of count three, we don’t have to prove prior knowledge, but simply that the conduct of the group as a whole amounted to threatening behaviour to make people fear for their safety. The prosecution suggest that the plan was for the black team to help the red team achieve their objective. It’s the prosecution’s case the red team DID have prior knowledge, but it’s not necessary to prove it because of the group conduct.
On count one – aggravated burglary – the first question is whether the jury is sure that the defendants entered the Elbit building without permission. On the evidence the answer must be yes. The second question asks whether at the time of entry the intention was to cause damage – again this is not really challenged by anyone. You could consider there was no other reason for Devlin to be there either.
So on question three, “at the time of entering the building” were they carrying something intending to be used to injure or incapacitate someone “if necessary”, or encouraging or assisting others to do so? Well there’s no realistic dispute that each knew the others would be carrying sledgehammers. It’s the second part that is in dispute. All defendants deny they intended the sledgehammers to be used for any violence against people. They claim that any violence was in self-defence or defence of another, having been taken “completely by surprise” by the presence of security.
Considering their intent, the prosecution accept that the defendants intended to use the sledgehammers to damage property, but we say they also “should the need arise” intended to use them to injure or incapacitate another person. The judge has directed it’s not sufficient if they only carried them to scare or intimidate, but we say that if you accept they were carrying them to intimidate or threaten, then that’s powerful evidence they were carrying them as weapons and intending to strike security or police if they didn’t back off.
Remember this was an action planned in advance. Everyone had had a chance to think about what might happen. They had signed up to committing criminal offences against Elbit weeks in advance. The jury heard they’d attended training earlier in the year and signed up to a “high level arrestable action”, followed by several regular meetings. All the defendants’ evidence claimed they didn’t expect to commit any offence which would lead to remand in custody, that there was to be no violence against anyone and no weapons used (remember the ‘power of veto’), and each ruled out the possibility of violence. They also said they didn’t expect the security guards would intervene – so they had no proper plan to deal with them. This lies at the heart of each defendant’s defence. The jury can take into consideration that none of them told the police they weren’t expecting any weapons to be used when asked about it at the time. Nothing was mentioned in their prepared statements either.
The jury should consider that the presentation they were given by Palestine Action didn’t suggest they would be committing anything other than lower level crimes – criminal damage, aggravated trespass, or simple burglary. But you must also consider that the Israeli ambassador had opened “the jewel in Elbit’s crown” – the Filton factory – apparently unperturbed by previous protests against the company. Charlotte Head spoke about the necessity to do more, and she got very involved in organising the elements of the action. Within a few weeks of the first training she bought the prison van, and booked the BnB, telling lies to the owner about its purpose. Samuel Corner said he’d seen screenshots of the factory before travelling. Ms Kamio had been googling for unisex boiler suits. Ms Head met other organisers and drove equipment to Bristol. So although the defendants were keen to stress the ‘need to know’ basis, they each knew a lot because they were part of the planning. Ms Head admitted that in mid-July she already knew there was a plan to drive into the building due to its high security.
Because of the level of organisation, the money required, the danger involved in crashing the van, the prosecution suggests this was obviously an action on a whole different scale to the lock-ons and vandalism that Palestine Action had previously organised.
None of the defendants have actually suggested that Palestine Action deceived them – the jury should not consider that either.
By now it was one o’clock and a break for lunch was called – once again the judge apologised again for the coldness of the courtroom and said he would see what could be done about it.
—————-
LUNCH BREAK
—————-
Ms Heer resumes her PROSECUTION SUMMARY:
The jury must consider the various meetings the defendants had, and reject the possibility that Palestine Action had tried to dupe these defendants. The seriousness of the plan is in the document which was displayed on the projector the night before the action, even if not every section was read out at that time. It was considered a “high-level ++” action. Although the document doesn’t refer explicitly to the use of violence and weapons, you wouldn’t expect it to, because Palestine Action wouldn’t want that to get out to the police or public – but the design of the action required the possibility. There had to be an effective plan to deal with security in order to succeed. Security guards needed to be kept at bay to enable the red team to get in, and then prevented from interfering with them once inside. The plan was to make it “more than their jobs’ worth” to get involved, which is why the black team had skewers, axes and whips, and the flares were fired towards the security not upwards. The weapons had been purchased more than a week before, and there was reference, in a message associated with one of the black team, to a “weapons count”.
If the red team had a power of veto, then they were either deceived, or they knew and they accepted there may be violence. Although not explicit, the documents implicitly suggest “shocking security” if they made their way through the ‘wall of smoke’, and “pushing back security” and “challenging them”. This was all clear to the black team. The security guards were there to protect the factory. They’d have seen and heard the prison van. They would have had no reason to follow the black team in the wrong direction.
If the plan had been to deceive the red team, why would Palestine Action arrange for them to stay together, attend a meeting with them, travel to the factory with them, with them holding the weapons in their hand. And why would the black team wander in front of the van towards the shutter? Wasn’t there a chance Mr Corner or Ms Head would have seen them. Why would Palestine Action take that risk?
The defendants suggest they would have not acted as part of a violent action. But they are intelligent, thoughtful individuals who thought carefully about why they did what they did and they wanted this action to succeed. They didn’t veto the use of weapons because if they had done so the action would have failed before they entered the building. So they must have known that they were liable to be remanded in custody but they can’t admit that to the jury, in the face of all the evidence, because that would prove they were guilty of the charges.
The ’high-level ++’ section of the document suggests a high risk of remand due to ‘tackling security’ leading to charges of aggravated burglary, affray or assault. It also demands attendance of a prison workshop. Ms Rogers said they’d attended a talk from an ex-prisoner on prison life. The document suggests Palestine Action “can’t predict how the police and courts will respond”. The co-ordinators were told to discuss realistically the prospect of being remanded and becoming a ‘political prisoner’. Palestine Action prepared these defendants for the possibility of prison. The evidence suggests this was the training the defendants received.
Ms Kamio made a note on her phone about the training on police raids, and we heard about her effort to make a pre-action interview in case she was imprisoned. She was also researching whether she could have medicines and vitamins in prison. Ms Rogers attended a prison workshop – some of the document from that is in evidence, and it begins “when the cells start to fill up, actionists are on to a win”. Palestine Action considers imprisonment an act of solidarity with Palestinians – “we must use our privilege to be prepared to go down”.
The defendants MUST have been aware that their actions were a higher level crime than they say they expected to be engaged in. Four of them admit they completed a prison support form. Ms Rogers wrote notes after attending the prison training – setting out advice line numbers, prisoners’ rights and so on – she said she only wrote it out to calm or distract herself, but she took it with her, hidden in her bra, on the action. The prosecution suggest it shows she knew the seriousness of the action they were signed up to, and the defendants must have thought there was a realistic possibility that security WOULD try and stop them smashing the place up, because it was their job after all.
Once the black team had escaped, there was nothing to stop the security entering the factory. Given the value of the site (more than £25 million according to the action plan, which described it as the highest-secured R&D facility), there must be every expectation security would try to protect it.
Can the jury really imagine the defendants didn’t have any plan other than shouting and running away? Against the fact that the defendants had otherwise good character, and they are all intelligent young people, you must remember that they had signed up to take part in this plan, and that the one thing to prevent it would be the security guards. They wanted to damage as many weapons as they could, and their plan for tackling the security guards was to use those weapons, the sledgehammers.
The jury has seen the CCTV and BWV footage. The prosecution admits that the footage doesn’t show everything that happened. There’s been evidence heard that suggests that missing or incomplete footage is suspicious and could be down to corruption or incompetence. We’ve heard that the police asked for all footage, and when it turned out it was incomplete or jumpy, the police returned to the factory and Elbit cooperated with them fully. The officer that went back investigated and watched all the footage and she explained that the issues with the frame rates and incomplete footage might lead to the defence exploiting this issue in this case.
The defendants say they were under attack from security, but we suggest the footage shows no such thing, and that this is why the defence want to suggest that the gaps in footage would show it. Ms Kamio suggests that the most and says she acted through fear, but neither her nor Mr Corner gave any such explanation when questioned by police, and the jury is invited to conclude they had no such explanation, or none that would stand up to cross-examination. On this point, none of the defendants appear to have given any thought to finding the footage from the GoPros that might prove their innocence. They may have not succeeded getting that evidence, but at least it should have occurred to them to try. An innocent person might want to get hold of any evidence that might help.
On the footage we DO have, the prosecution suggest it speaks for itself. The security attempt to stop the defendants, and are met with threats, swinging of sledgehammers, and in Mr Corner’s case it ended with him hitting two police officers, who he said he thought were security guards ‘complicit in genocide’.
Ms Rajwani and Ms Rogers said their sledgehammers were very unwieldy and heavy, and Ms Camio said she struggled with hers, so why didn’t they use other tools instead of hanging on to them. We suggest it was because they had another purpose – as weapons.
Ms Heer played a bit of footage one more time to the jury, asking them to look at the floor plans showing camera positions once more.
Beginning with footage of Mr Luke entering the building, Ms Head, Ms Kamio and Mr Corner said they had just started pushing over shelves, and smashing equipment. We don’t see what first happened, but see Mr Luke backing away from several of the defendants out of that first area, and we see at least Ms Head and Mr Devlin with sledgehammers.
Ms Kamio says she heard a scream and saw Ms Head on the floor, and Mr Luke “let go of her”. She’s the only one who suggested Mr Luke had any contact with Ms Head, and none of the others have confirmed this, although they were together at that time. If it did happen, it’s clearly important, but Ms Kamio made no reference to it in her police interviews, nor in her defence statement to the court. The prosecution suggests that Ms Kamio exploited a gap in the CCTV coverage to explain what happened that night. What we do see is that Mr Luke was unarmed and had backed off.
With around an hour since lunch and the court going from cold to boiling hot, the court took a ten-minute break.
—————————-
MID-AFTERNOON BREAK
—————————-
After a short break, Ms Heer continued her PROSECUTION SUMMARY:
When security guard Mr Volante ran into the factory he was shouting ‘You are being recorded”. All the defendants claim that he used excessive force, calling him a ‘psycho’, ‘ a crazy man’, unhinged’, and they were terrified of what he did do or what he might do. The footage doesn’t bear that out. He was assertive, loud, unafraid, even when threatened by sledgehammers. But the prosecution say that he was entitled to be loud, and to use reasonable force to prevent these defendants damaging property or hurting anyone, and the footage we DO have bears that out.
Early on, he managed to relieve Ms Rogers of her sledgehammer, but rather than walk away the defendants spent time trying to get it back, because their plan was always for them to have the weapons, not the security guards. Their defence of self-defence fails because it wasn’t necessary. They could have backed away, or gone to damage property somewhere else, or left the building. But they continued to engage.
The unedited footage that the jury saw suggests Mr Volante entered the factory with a whip in his hand but he dropped it early on and pushed Mr Devlin with his hand. By contrast, Ms Rogers swung her sledgehammer at him, although she denies she was aiming it at him, only in front of her in order to ‘intimidate’ him. It was close enough that he grabbed it off her. Mr Devlin’s hammer was on the floor, so he tried to grab hers back from Volante. Ms Rogers then picked up Devlin’s hammer. Volante’s back was against the wall. He’s holding the sledgehammer by its neck and Devlin is trying to grab it off him. We don’t see him using it as a weapon. But Ms Rogers swings her hammer again, which causes her to turn through 360 degrees. Volante tells her to put the hammer down. Ms Rogers responds by telling Mr Volante to get out or she won’t, and she admitted that she was trying to intimidate him, although she says in her evidence that she didn’t think he’d consider her any threat. But telling him to get out is not expressing fear and is not self-defence.
Devlin is still struggling, and Volante kicks out at him. On the footage we don’t see how Ms Rogers ends up on the floor. We also don’t see Volante hit anyone with the sledgehammer, despite what Mr Devlin’s barrister Mr Morris suggested in cross-examination, nor that Volante bit anyone or tried to. In his evidence he said he was trying to collect the weapons and take them away.
The next thing that happened is that Mr Shaw came in through the loading bay with his crumpled umbrella, and he is confronted by Ms Kamio and Mr Corner with sledgehammers, and Ms Head had a lit flare. He was followed as he moved back – with the three of them shouting at him. Ms Kamio said his face was contorted with rage and he was ready to stab her with his umbrella. We can’t see his face, and the prosecution suggests that she’s exploiting the fact that we can’t see his face on the video. Mr Corner said in his evidence that Mr Shaw only had an umbrella and was bleeding from the head and had said he was concussed. He was only concerned that Mr Shaw was going to try and stop them smashing stuff up. None seem concerned how he had got his injury.
Next, in the alcove, we only have the distant view from Camera 20. We see Volante entering the alcove, and Ms Rogers and Mr Devlin are in front of him. Ms Kamio and Ms Rajwani both arrive, they’re carrying sledgehammers, and Ms Rogers then leaves to go and join Mr Corner, which we’ll come back to. The security guard says that Ms Kamio brandished an angle grinder, that Ms Head whipped him and that Mr Devlin was trying to take a sledgehammer off him. In her evidence Ms Kamio says that it was Volante swinging the angle grinder, and he was swinging the sledgehammer ‘with force like a psycho’. The prosecution admit the view from Camera 20 is not great, but we can’t see this, and none of the other defendants mentioned it in evidence. Ms Head denied using a whip against Mr Volante, although the camera shows she was at least carrying one. In her evidence she says Volante was holding a sledgehammer and was shouting, but that then they had a relatively calm conversation and she was asking him to leave. Ms Rajwani made no mention of Volante’s bad behaviour at that point either, although on the camera she appears to have a decent view. None of the defendants have apparently tried to locate footage streamed from their GoPro cameras.
Going back to Mr Shaw, he had walked around the warehouse and appeared under Camera 20, walking backwards, apparently because Samuel Corner is running towards him wielding his sledgehammer at him. The available footage cuts from one camera to another at the point that he seems to bring the hammer down towards Mr Shaw, and Mr Corner admitted in his evidence to trying to hit Mr Shaw’s umbrella. The prosecution suggest there’s no basis of self-defence. Corner had earlier said “it’s just a fucking umbrella”. In evidence Mr Corner said just that Shaw might have tried to stop them smashing stuff up, or that he was “panicking”. Either way, it’s not self-defence.
When Mr Luke re-enters from the control room, Ms Rajwani saw him and alerted others, although she admitted he was unarmed. Ms Kamio appears to run towards him with a sledgehammer, which he tried to take off her. She said in evidence that she was scared he’d hit her with it if he got it, and that she was bluffing. The prosecution say he posed no risk and was trying to confiscate the weapon. Mr Luke says Ms Kamio kicked him, and if you look carefully at the video footage you can also see that Ms Head came over to help and she used her whip twice, but Mr Luke grabbed it off her. The prosecution suggest that the footage shows Ms Rajwani pass her sledgehammer to Ms Head, although she denies that. She says it was becoming too heavy and she put it on the floor. Again the footage is not clear, but it looks like Ms Rajwani has it in her hand, and just three seconds later Ms Head has it, so we can infer that she passed it to Charlotte Head, who raises it up, moves towards Mr Luke, then steps back and hands it to Mr Devlin, who is still over at the alcove with Mr Volante.
Meanwhile Ms Rajwani lights a flare ‘as a distraction’. The prosecution suggest this is to distract Mr Luke and give Ms Kamio an advantage, and although Ms Rajwani doesn’t use a hammer herself to try to injure anyone, she is giving support to others who are doing so.
We hear Ms Kamio calling ‘chairleg’ (Mr Corner’s nickname) over to help her, but she manages to wrestle the sledgehammer off Mr Luke, though she claimed he was much stronger than her, at which point Mr Corner prods his hammer at Mr Luke, who retreats through the doorway.
Back at the alcove, the distant Camera 20 shows Ms Kamio, Ms Rogers and Ms Rajwani coming away from there followed by Mr Devlin and then we see Zoe Rogers and Leona Kamio finally using their sledgehammers to damage property. But when Mr Volante reappears, apparently starting to collect items off the floor and posing no threat, they move towards him along with Mr Devlin. He walks away from the defendants (after picking up an angle grinder and a sledgehammer), but they follow him with sledgehammers raised, and Ms Kamio discharges a fire extinguisher at him and he leaves.
Later we see Mr Corner going to the disabled toilet, turning his back on Mr Shaw.
The prosecution suggests the only people threatened with force are the three security guards.
Three police officers (Sergeant Evans and Constables Adams and Buxton) then arrive, while the defendants were busy smashing equipment. Although Ms Rogers, Ms Rajwani and Ms Head complied with police and security, Ms Kamio, Mr Devlin and Mr Corner did not.
Ms Kamio was tasered when she didn’t stop what she was doing. We see the sledgehammer raised above her head. Mr Volante grabs the sledgehammer from her, and she throws something at Mr Adams.
At that point, she is seen resisting arrest, and although in her evidence she says she may have been over-dramatic, she claims she was not resisting. The prosecution say she could have just allowed herself to be handcuffed, but that she didn’t, because, as Mr Corner mentioned in evidence, resistance was a tactic to occupy police for as long as possible so others could continue destroying things. He claimed that resistance meant ‘going floppy’, but we see he also resisted being handcuffed when he was later arrested. We later hear Ms Kamio say “I’m complying now”, which suggests she wasn’t before.
Before playing some footage from PC Adams’ BWV, Ms Heer asks the jury to watch what’s going on in the distant background, which she explains as follows.
Mr Devlin has fallen to the floor, and as he tries to get up, Mr Volante is seen striking the side of his neck with the handle of a sledgehammer he’d just taken from Ms Kamio. The defence has suggested that Volante used excessive force when he hit Mr Devlin with the handle of a sledgehammer. The jury will have to decide, but if you think that it was excessive, it was the first time in the footage that we see any of the guards use excessive force, and up to that point he had been continually threatened by intruders with sledgehammers, at least one of whom had tried to swing at him, and one had discharged a fire extinguisher at him. The footage shows Mr Devlin struggling to get the sledgehammer off Volante, and PC Buxton then used his PAVA spray on Mr Devlin and grabbed him. Volante went over and started shouting at Ms Head and Ms Rajwani, and Mr Corner comes over to where Buxton and Devlin are on the ground.
Ms Heer pauses the video on a shot where Mr Corner appears to be raising his sledgehammer, and with Mr Devlin next to him, with PC Buxton lying on the floor below them.
Mr Buxton says he was hit by the sledgehammer and was in immediate pain, and Mr Devlin appears to then be on top of him holding him down. A second shot from a distance (Mr Luke’s BWV when he is over near Ms Head and Ms Rajwani) seems to show Mr Devlin push Mr Buxton onto the ground. Mr Devlin has chosen not to go in the witness box, and the jury may consider he has no explanation and is acting in a threatening and violent way towards that police officer.
In his own evidence, Mr Corner has agreed that with hindsight his actions were completely over the top but he had at that point lost control, but the prosecution say he did know what he was doing because he then went and did the same thing to Sergeant Evans.
The prosecution has spent time showing these clips once more, because it shows how willing the red team were to use violence. Each of these defendants at least threatened or did commit unlawful violence, and if the jury agrees, then each is guilty of violent disorder within the factory.
Ms Head whipped Mr Volante and Mr Luke, and threatened Mr Luke with a sledgehammer.
Mr Corner swung his sledgehammer at Mr Luke, Mr Shaw and Mr Volante, and striking Mr Buxton and Ms Evans.
Ms Kamio brandished her hammer at Mr Shaw, swung it at Mr Luke, sprayed Mr Volante with a fire extinguisher and threatened him with an angle grinder.
Ms Rajwani supported the others while holding a sledgehammer and a flare, and tried to distract Mr Luke when he was trying to defend himself.
Ms Rogers swung her sledgehammer twice at Mr Volante and followed him with Mr Devlin and Ms Kamio.
Mr Devlin tried to take back a sledgehammer that Mr Volante had confiscated, and pushed Mr Buxton to the ground, holding him down after Mr Corner had hit him with a sledgehammer.
None of that was lawful, and none of them could have believed, having broken into the factory, that the police and security had used excessive force. They were committing a crime, the guards had a right to stop them, and it was under those circumstances they used violence that night.
And if the jury is sure that they’re guilty of violent disorder, then they are also guilty of aggravated trespass, because they carried those hammers into the factory ready to use them as weapons if necessary. They might have hoped they wouldn’t have to use them, but there was no logical reason why they had them, and they used them as weapons.
Ms Heer paused at this point. She was hoping to finish her summary today, but with the temperature in the court room now changed from cold to very warm, and with so much information delivered, she said that she sensed some of the jury were struggling. After a brief exchange between all parties, it was decided to leave her final section (on Count 4) to the morning.
As it turned out, the next day’s proceedings (7th January) were halted by a medical issue for one of the jurors.
(WEEK SIX) – DAY 20 – Thursday 8th January
After delays getting defendants into court this morning, the prosecution barrister, Ms Heer, resumed her closing speech with reference to the fourth indictment, which is against Samuel Corner alone.
Turning to Count 4, Samuel Corner is charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The jury may think his guilt is, on the evidence, without doubt. The prosecution will go through the evidence that will help the jury answer the questions which they are asked to consider in the Route To Verdict.
First, are you sure that when he struck the officer with the sledgehammer that he wasn’t acting in lawful self-defence or defence of another? He has told the court he thought either Ms Kamio or Ms Rogers, he wasn’t sure which, was under attack, because of screams he could hear. He says he didn’t realise the police had arrived and were performing arrests.
The law says he could only use ‘reasonable’ force, and only if he genuinely, even if mistakenly, believed it was necessary to do so. So first, the jury must ask whether he could have genuinely believed it was necessary. The officers all had the word ‘police’ on their uniforms, and Mr Corner had already had an interaction with PC Buxton, hitting him with the sledgehammer while he was on the ground. He says his vision was blurred because he had been pepper-sprayed, but when Buxton entered the factory he went straight across to Corner who was looking directly at him and would also be able to see the word ‘police’ on his stab vest. He says he couldn’t remember seeing the word ‘police’ on PS Evans’ back either. The jury may think it’s fanciful that he didn’t know the police had arrived. All the defendants expected the police to turn up and the action plan had a note that the nearest police station was only three minutes away. Mr Corner admitted that he expected the security guards to call the police, and had heard Mr Luke shouting that he had called the police.
The jury should consider whether Mr Corner has come up with the explanation later, as he didn’t mention it when arrested. The prosecution suggest the jury reject the idea that he thought Ms Kamio or Ms Rogers were under attack, because he also knew it was a tactic to occupy police for as long as possible, and though he says that that meant ‘going floppy’, both Ms Kamio and Mr Corner himself resisted being handcuffed. When he was told to drop whatever he had in his pocket, he didn’t, and when told to sit, he got up. He was resisting, just as others were resisting. So he knew the shouting was resistance, not because they were being attacked.
Even if he thought Sergeant Evans was a security guard and not police, she would still have been entitled to use reasonable force, and it was clear she wasn’t hurting anyone. There was no necessity for Mr Corner to use any force, and the jury should consider he didn’t believe there was. It was the last in a series of attacks in which he used his sledgehammer that night and had nothing to do with self-defence or defence of another.
In evidence he said he thought the security guards were all complicit in genocide and the jury may consider that’s why he attacked them. It was the first thing he said to Sgt Evans when she crawled across to check his handcuffs weren’t too tight. She said he kept repeating about genocide, even when she said something to him about hitting her with hammer, which he didn’t recognise at all.
Even if the jury thinks Corner may have believed it necessary to use force to defend Ms Rogers or Ms Kamio, what he did was completely out of proportion. The officer had no weapons in her hand, whereas the sledgehammer weighed 7lbs – he’d just used it to smash up the toilet – and he issued no warning to the officer, who was on the ground, completely vulnerable. He lifted the hammer and brought it down on her back causing the injury the consultant described as common in a fall or traffic accident.
It’s all very well for Mr Corner to claim he was panicking, but the prosecution say the evidence shows him acting without hesitation, moving towards Ms Evans without confusion.
When the jury considers the evidence they can reject any possibility he was acting in defence of another – Point 4.1 in the Route To Verdict.
The second question asks the jury to consider whether when he struck her he realised he would cause ‘some’ injury. The prosecution say he is an intelligent adult, and he would have known he would cause at least some injury.
The third question is whether he intended to cause ‘really serious bodily injury’, and the defence disputes this, but the jury must ask what else he might have intended. The chance of that level of injury was very high, and he didn’t just hit her once, but he raised the hammer a second time. By then she had twisted round, and he only managed to hit her on the leg. Mr Wainwright, his barrister, pointed that out during cross-examination. The prosecution suggest that that was sheer luck and nothing to do with restraint. He was determined to cause really serious bodily injury.
It wasn’t until he was threatened with the taser that he turned away, but he still kept hold of the hammer, and he only finally let go when he was brought down from behind by PC Buxton.
The jury might also want to consider that if Mr Volante hadn’t pulled Mr Devlin away from PC Buxton and held him in that choke-hold, Mr Buxton wouldn’t have been able to stop Mr Corner doing even more damage.
The prosecution suggests that ALL of this is clear from the footage.
Ms Heer asks the jury to look once more at the slowed down footage.
The prosecution suggests the jury CAN be sure that Mr Corner intended to cause really serious injury, given the evidence and the weight of the hammer.
The final question is whether he DID cause really serious injury. As the jury have seen from the medical evidence, a CT scan of Sergeant Evans’ spine showed a fracture of the right third transverse process of the lumbar spine, a probable fracture of the right second transverse process of the lumbar spine, and a displaced fracture of the right fourth transverse process of the lumbar spine. That scan was delayed, but plainly all those injuries were caused during this incident.
This kind of injury is usually treated conservatively, healing in 6 to 12 weeks, with full healing over six months in which there can be pain and loss of mobility. PS Evans said she was scared – she thought her spine may have been shattered, from the pain. In the following days, she said she couldn’t sit up for any length of time and needed help with ordinary tasks. She suffered pins and needles in her legs and was on pain-killers. She was off work for 3 months, and even now she is back at work on restricted duties. She has told the jury she is still suffering from weakness in her spine and hip.
The prosecution do not have to prove permanent damage, and while Mr Corner says he doesn’t think he has caused really serious injury, the jury may think that he clearly did. There are lesser verdicts available but you may think there is no doubt that Mr Corner is guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The jury will be hearing speeches on behalf of the defendants They’ve been told the defendants are all of good character, but they need to consider that the defendants planned and intended to do criminal acts that evening, and that they took the sledgehammers in order not only damage equipment, but also to cause injury if they needed to do so, and that is what Mr Corner did that night.
Looking at all the evidence dispassionately and in accordance with the oath, the jury may find that the only verdict for all the defendants on each count is guilty.
Apart from how Judge Johnson decides to summarise, advise or direct the jury early next week (which in theory should be neutral and unbiased), the case for the prosecution is now over, and the legal representative of each defendant will over the next couple of days have time to address the jury and show that there is at least reasonable doubt over each charge, leading to acquittal.
After a short break it was time for the first of the defence speeches, and Mr Rajiv Manon KC addressed the jury on behalf of Charlotte Head. It was a long and powerful speech, which began with the Suffragettes and ended with Refaat Alareer. You can read all the defence speeches in our separate article here.
“No Elbit witness has been called. The security guards were not employed by Elbit directly, but by another company. So Elbit remains in the shadows, hidden and protected.
But not, ladies and gentlemen, in the corridors of power, where no doubt they are welcomed, wined and dined – whilst Charlotte and all the other co-accused in this case have been denied bail and locked up for 17 months.”
