In the latest blow to the Labour government, the so-called Filton 24 have been acquitted of the most serious charges against them. Although the case is ongoing for lesser charges, this represents a huge victory and is yet another example that the government is hopelessly out of touch. No wonder they want to ban jury trials.
Now before I go further, I must clarify that this article is not intended to invite support for Palestine Action. While the group’s proscription was overturned by the High Court, it remains in place pending appeal. It is my position that the proscription was wrong and this article should hopefully shed further light on why.
The Filton 24 case involved a 2024 incident at an Elbit Systems subsidiary in Filton, near Bristol. Six members of the group entered the factory with sledgehammers and red paint. Their goal was to dismantle the machinery that produces drones and weapons for Israel’s genocide. In other words: to save lives. The group argued its actions were compliant with international law by preventing, or attempting to prevent, illegal arms exports.
Camera footage shows security guards confronted the group with whips inside the factory. Now I used to hold a Security Industry Authority licence and can confirm that under no circumstances should security guards attack intruders. Nor should they use whips! Violence is permitted only in self-defence and must never be excessive. However, the defendants argued the security guards kicked and choked and whipped them and even used one of their sledgehammers against them. It appears the group acted in self-defence, hence their acquittal. This demonstrates how irresponsible it was of politicians to talk as though they were guilty.
Six of the Filton 24 were arrested on site, hence the “Filton 6”, and the rest were arrested later for organising the break-in. Prosecutors charged the group with aggravated burglary (carrying a potential life sentence), violent disorder, and criminal damage.
The prosecution argued that the group intended to use their sledgehammers against people, not just property, but there was no evidence to support that claim. Those sledgehammers were used for the break-in and sabotage of equipment, and then apparently in self-defence.
While the break-in took place before the proscription of Palestine Action, the Filton 24 were denied bail and treated like terrorists anyway. The 18-month remand for many defendants far exceeded the legal six-month limit. The justification used by politicians was that they had committed the crime of aggravated burglary, seriously injured a police officer, and posed a flight risk. In reality, the government just wanted them punished as harshly as possible for upsetting Israel. The whole thing was political.
The trials unfolded at Woolwich Crown Court, beginning with the Filton 6 in early 2026. After eight days of deliberation, the jury acquitted all six of aggravated burglary, finding no intent to harm individuals. Three were also acquitted of violent disorder, and the jury was hung on the other three. The criminal damage charges resulted in no convictions, but hung juries mean there will be retrials. Five of the Fulton 6 were bailed after 18 months on remand, but Samuel Corner remained in custody pending a CPS decision.
The entire Filton 24 have now been cleared of aggravated burglary, the most serious charge that could have resulted in a life sentence. Predictably, mainstream coverage is not painting a full picture, leading many to remain misinformed about what took place.
The possible evidence tampering is something that is rarely highlighted by the corporate media. Much of the evidence presented against the Filton 24 was either missing, incomplete, late-disclosed, or in the case of the camera footage, potentially edited. These issues contributed towards the acquittals.
Multiple Elbit CCTV cameras covering critical areas produced no usable footage. This included cameras covering key areas such as an alcove where much of the confrontation took place. Four of the cameras were either not working (where have I heard that before?) or showed no movement due to low frame rates. Footage from other cameras was either not retrieved or downloaded.
A police officer testified that she did not download from certain cameras because they appeared inactive, even though those cameras were located in key positions. The defence only learned of the additional missing footage during the trial — initial disclosure maps suggested only eight missing when the true figure was 12.
It’s worth noting that Elbit Systems had exclusive access to the CCTV system for two days until police collected any footage. Even worse, Elbit staff performed the initial downloads rather than the police. An email from a police officer warned Elbit about “gaps and jumps” in the footage, saying this gave the defence “a huge opportunity” to challenge the evidence.
The bodycams of security guards were turned off and on repeatedly, giving the impression of curated footage. The bodycams of police officers contradicted the testimonies of security guards, further undermining their credibility. Footage of the security guards using whips only appeared in unredacted footage that was obtained by the defence mid-trial.
The prosecution relied heavily on the camera footage, but that footage supported arguments from the defence more than the prosecution. Elbit was not called to testify about its camera failures, despite the company’s expertise in surveillance. No charges resulted against Elbit or police in regards to evidence tampering, with irregularities blamed on disclosure failures, technical issues, or poor chain-of-custody.
This highlights a key problem: while recent court victories have been important for free speech, the government, police, and Elbit still appear to be above the law. It is not enough to beat them in court, there needs to be accountability. As it currently stands, these people are continuing to abuse their power when they are so clearly in the wrong.
When the High Court overturned the Palestine Action proscription, this was the government’s opportunity to apologise and say they got it wrong. Instead, they doubled down and decided to appeal. They are even talking about introducing new laws banning “extreme protest groups” if they are unsuccessful.
Yvette Cooper defended the Palestine Action ban, saying she was following “clear advice” from agencies. However, leaked emails suggest the government had taken that advice from Elbit Systems. Cooper has suggested the ban was necessary for “national security”, but it’s unclear how helping Israel commit genocide benefits our national security.
Cooper’s replacement as home secretary Shabana Mahmood is now arguing the High Court ruling undermines public safety. This is odd because last time I checked, Palestine Action was not going after members of the public, it was going after Israel’s arms suppliers.
Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.
Thank you so much. Information is indeed sparse in the msm
Not quite a victory. From the linked article: "The defendants, who have not yet been tried on all counts, now face retrials on charges where the jury failed to reach verdicts.
These include criminal damage, violent disorder, and in one case, grievous bodily harm with intent against a police officer. Prosecutors confirmed that they will seek retrials on these charges, which could be altered to lesser offences."
That GBH charge is the main one that the Zionist media is using to stigmatise the defendants, as if they were all accused jointly. Because a police officer was injured (very slightly, although that is rarely mentioned) and even more so because she is female (and all women are weak, fragile and pathetic, apparently), that charge makes Palestine Action evil, while genocide against men, women and children is trivial.