Another prosecution arising from protests at Elbit Systems’ Filton site has ended in a result that will be deeply uncomfortable for those seeking to criminalise Palestine solidarity activism.
At London’s Old Bailey, Madeleine Norman, Hannah Davidson, Teuta Hoxha, Ola Alexandra Herbich, Ian Sanders, William Plastow and Yulia Brigadirova faced serious allegations of criminal damage and violent disorder. Prosecutors alleged that encrypted communications had been used to organise an action at the Filton facility and that drones and other equipment were damaged.
But when the case was put before a jury, the prosecution failed to secure convictions on most of the charges.
The jury could not agree on verdicts on the majority of counts, while the judge acquitted William Plastow on one violent disorder charge. Only one minor guilty finding was reported.
For supporters of the defendants, that outcome represents something far more significant than a technical legal result. It is another powerful reminder that the state may bring charges, deploy substantial resources and attach the most serious rhetoric to protest actions, but ultimately a jury of ordinary citizens must still be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt.
And, on most of these allegations, that did not happen.
The result follows other difficult prosecutions arising from action at Filton and raises uncomfortable questions about the increasingly aggressive legal response to Palestine solidarity activists. Supporters argue that the defendants were political activists taking direct action against a company they believe is involved in supplying military equipment to Israel, rather than ordinary criminals motivated by personal gain.
From that perspective, the repeated inability of prosecutors to secure comprehensive convictions is significant. It suggests that jurors may be unwilling to accept a simple narrative in which politically motivated direct action is stripped of its political context and presented solely as criminality.
That question has become even more urgent since the government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation in 2025. The designation has dramatically raised the stakes for activists and supporters, while provoking fierce debate about whether an organisation engaged in disruptive protest should be treated within the framework of terrorism.
For the defendants and their supporters, the Old Bailey outcome is therefore being celebrated as a rejection of that broader attempt to criminalise dissent. Whatever one thinks of the tactics used at Filton, the jury’s failure to convict on most counts demonstrates that politically controversial protest cannot simply be equated with guilt.
The defendants walked into court facing allegations carrying serious consequences. They walked out without convictions on the overwhelming majority of the charges.
That matters.
It is a reminder that protest does not lose its political character merely because the state chooses to prosecute it — and that, in a jury trial, the final word does not belong to the government, the police or the prosecution.
It belongs to ordinary people asked to decide whether the case has actually been proved.
At the Old Bailey, on most of these charges, the answer was emphatically not yes.
