Video summary
In 2024, six activists from Palestine Action entered a weapons facility in Filton near Bristol and destroyed military drones and equipment intended for use in Gaza. Following a trial that lasted over a year, four of these individuals were convicted of criminal damage and grievous bodily harm, while two were acquitted on all charges. A pivotal moment in the proceedings occurred when the presiding judge identified a terrorist connection to their actions, a factor that had not been presented to the jury during the initial conviction phase. Consequently, all four defendants received significantly extended prison sentences ranging from five to eight years and were subjected to a restrictive regime typical of terrorism cases, including severe limitations on communication and future parole eligibility.
The legal team behind the appeal argues that the judge applied an incorrect test regarding what constitutes "serious damage to property" under the Terrorism Act 2000. Their central contention is that the destruction of military equipment did not meet the high threshold required for terrorism charges, which was originally intended to address acts causing extreme fear or undermining government foundations through serious violence. Furthermore, they assert that there was no evidence of an intent to influence the government or intimidate the public, and that their actions were driven by humanitarian concerns rather than political ideology. The defense highlights that the legislation's definition of "serious" property damage is dangerously vague, allowing a broad interpretation that could criminalize almost any offense punishable by two years or more, effectively expanding state power without sufficient parliamentary debate.
Beyond the legal arguments, the video presents harrowing testimony from Dr. James Smith and the mothers of the imprisoned activists to contextualize the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Dr. Smith shared accounts of Israeli drone strikes on civilians, including a specific case where a quadcopter-mounted sniper rifle killed a ten-day-old baby while his mother was breastfeeding inside their tent. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry reportedly concluded that such attacks were deliberate and conducted with full knowledge of the targets' identities. Meanwhile, the mothers described the harsh reality of prison life for their daughters, noting total isolation from other inmates, strict limits on visitors to only twenty vetted individuals, and the prospect of up to fifteen years of post-release notification requirements. They emphasize that without the terrorism designation, the activists would have been released after serving their time, but the current charges impose lifelong consequences and disconnect them from their families and support networks.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond the individual defendants, as it tests the boundaries of civil liberties and human rights within a liberal democracy. Critics argue that terrorism legislation functions as an exception to universal rights, allowing for indefinite detention, restricted evidence rules, and harsher sentencing that are typically reserved for child sex offenses. There is significant concern that establishing a precedent where property damage alone can be classified as terrorism creates a slippery slope toward authoritarianism, enabling the state to suppress political opponents and erode civil freedoms. The activists and their supporters view this appeal not just as a fight for their own freedom, but as a crucial opportunity to challenge a legal framework that could fundamentally reshape British law and society for decades to come, potentially normalizing expanded state powers that are difficult to roll back once established.
Read the full video transcript
In 2024, six Palestine action activists
entered an Albert Weapons facility in
Filton near Bristol, where they smashed
up military drones and other equipment
intended, they said, for Gaza.
Earlier this year, after more than a
year in prison and one failed trial
which resulted in multiple acquittals on
several charges, four of them were
convicted of criminal damage at the
Israel-owned site, with one also
convicted of grievous bodily harm,
though without intent for striking a
police officer. Two were cleared of all
charges.
In that same trial, the four became the
first British direct actionists to be
sentenced as terrorists after the
presiding judge found a terror
connection in the criminal damage that
they had committed.
That possibility had been concealed from
the jury when they convicted the four.
As a result, all four received much
lengthier sentences ranging between five
and eight years.
Having been sentenced as terrorist, the
four were also subject to a very
different prison regime from normal
prisoners. They will also only be
eligible for parole much later than
normal prisoners, too, and will spend up
to 15 years being subject to reporting
requirements after they're released,
meaning they'll need to notify the
police of any new device, bank account,
address, holiday, or indeed
relationship. Known as the Filton Four,
Ellie Cameo, Charlotte Head, Fatima
Zainab Rochwane, and Samuel Corner,
they're now seeking to appeal the
judge's decision in finding a terror
connection.
Novara's Harriet Williamson attended the
announcement of that appeal, and she put
this question to lawyer Simon Asses.
>> Can you explain in simple language what
the grounds are for the appeal and give
an opinion on how likely you think it is
to succeed?
>> The the judge
applied the wrong test for serious
damage property, so this was not serious
property damage
and therefore didn't come within
within section one of the Terrorism Act.
Secondly, that it wasn't carried out and
there was no evidence that it was
carried out with the intention of
influencing the government
or to intimidate the public or a section
of the public, so that element of the
Terrorism Act wasn't met.
And
Um,
that um, it was a humanitarian cause
rather than a political ideological one.
Um, those those those really the
arguments that are are central to the
appeal.
>> After the press conference, Harriet
caught up with Simon again for more
detail.
Simon, you've told us that you think you
have really strong grounds for appeal
here for the Feltham four. Can you
explain a bit to the Novara Live
audience about why that is?
>> The center of our appeal um, is
the operation of the Terrorism Act
itself and what amounts to serious
damage to property. The only way of
understanding that is to go back and
look at the parliamentary debates that
took place in 1999 when
um, the then Labour government
introduced the Terrorism Act. Terrorism
was by by its nature involved serious
violence.
Um, that um, it was intended to create a
climate of extreme fear and to undermine
the foundations of government. Um, that
sets the bar
very high.
>> And it's very difficult to argue in this
case that any of those three conditions
were met.
>> Yes, that's what we say. They were
acquitted of offenses of violence um,
and they were sentenced only for
uh, for criminal damage.
>> So, how did we get from these three
conditions that Jack Straw laid out in
Parliament in the the early 2000s to
here?
>> Well, the act itself doesn't say any of
that and it leaves
what the word serious means as being
something that's open
um,
for debate.
>> Why is it so broad? Why is this term not
really clearly defined?
>> Um, because Parliament didn't define it
clearly enough um, in the legislation.
What that what that then creates is um,
a problem of interpretation. At least
that's what we say. We don't have
difficulty in determining what's really
serious injury is and it affects how you
know, people's ability to function, the
amount of pain they suffer, etc. All
those sorts of things is quite possible
to determine. Once you introduce the
concept of seriousness to property
damage, that immediately invites the
question of whether that's quantitative
because that's how most people
understand property damage. People will
immediately think, "Well, what did it
cost to actually repair the damage?"
>> We are now in a situation where all
crimes that are punishable by 2 years or
more in prison can have this terror
connection applied to them. And I'm not
sure that's something that many people
knew before this case was made public.
>> Yeah, that's that's that's quite right.
Um and this is
an enormous change to the operation of
our criminal law that happened without
very much debate. And I And in my view,
without any real proper understanding of
where it could lead.
>> Another speaker on the panel was Dr.
James Smith, an emergency doctor who has
worked in Gaza and a lecturer on
humanitarian policy.
He gave this harrowing testimony of
Israel's use of drones against
Palestinian civilians.
>> I should say that it's to our collective
shame that we've innovated so creatively
and so barbarically in the means to maim
and kill.
Back in June, on the day of sentencing
in Woolwich, I wrote to a Palestinian
healthcare worker that I worked with for
2 months back in 2024.
Uh and I asked them I I told them about
the ongoing cases and I asked them if
they could remember roughly how many
patients we'd seen or that they have
seen since that were injured
specifically by Israeli quadcopters.
They responded, "It's uncountable. It
happens every day and all the time."
In June of this year, the Independent
International Commission of Inquiry
released a 94-page report that
meticulously documents Israel's
deliberate targeting in Gaza of
Palestinian children specifically.
That report is publicly available in
full and Israel's use of quadcopters
features heavily throughout it.
One of several utterly horrific cases
that have been investigated by the
commission documents the case of a
10-day-old baby boy who was being
breastfed by his mother inside their
tent in Nuseirat in central Gaza on the
12th of April 2024.
The baby was shot in the head.
Miraculously both the baby and the
mother survived, but the infant has been
left with permanent life-altering
disability and seizures.
The baby was shot by an Israeli
quadcopter.
The inquiry goes on, and I quote now,
"The commission concluded on reasonable
grounds that the bullet was fired from a
sniper rifle mounted on a quadcopter.
Considering that the shooting occurred
in broad daylight, the commission
concludes that the quadcopter controller
would have been able to see inside the
attempt and assess that the target was a
mother and a baby."
>> After the press conference, Harriet
spoke to the mothers of two of the
Felton four. This is Emma Cameo and
Sukaina Rashwani, whose daughters Layla
and Fatima are currently serving time.
>> Do Do you both want to just start off by
telling us a little bit about what your
daughters are experiencing in prison?
>> Isolation is the name of the game, you
know, that's what they've they've
isolated them from each other when they
were in the same prisons. They've
isolated them um from other prisoners.
They have their own cell, they don't
share.
>> Before uh they were sentenced, anyone in
the world could write to them in any
number of people. I mean, they didn't
always get them down to prison policy
for whatever reason, but that they were
sent letters from anyone and anybody.
Anyone could visit them as long as
they'd been previously vetted by the
prison. Um and then they were allowed 20
people that they could call.
Now the 20 vetted are the only ones that
can write, the only ones that she can
call, and the only ones that visit.
>> Fatma Zaynab has spent 10% of her life.
She's spent 2 years in prison already
waiting for her trial and then after
sentencing to date.
And this is all because of the terror
connection that's been applied to their
case. If it wasn't for the terror
connection that has been applied on
their sentence, she would have been out
on time served.
But because of the terror connection,
it's just made everything so much more
worse for all of them. And for Fatima
Zaynab, and even in prison, things are
so much more difficult because of that.
Disconnected from the world,
disconnected from the family,
disconnected from the support network.
And then even in terms of what, you
know, what it means for her after
release, it's not like it's the end of
it.
She's looking at 15 years of
notification and just a simple
mistake on her part could land her back
in prison. It has lifelong consequences
for her. And that's why it is so much
more important right now that this
appeal gets challenged successfully.
Once it is applied successfully,
it is something that's going to become
the norm. And this is what people need
to wake up to and be aware of.
>> Seems pretty cold given the kind of
people that potentially could be less
out of prison in Labour's prisoner
release scheme. And yet, you know,
the level to which the they will make an
example of people using this terror
connection
it's it's difficult to hear. Now, let's
go back to that interview.
>> Can you tell us a little bit about how
you feel about the the appeal and how
you feel about the action that your
daughters took?
>> I am incredibly proud of Fatima Zaynab
for standing up to her morals, to her
conscience. I am extremely proud of her.
I am, to be honest, the experience that
we've had with the law doesn't fill me
with a lot of hope.
But we do have strong legal arguments.
We do have a strong legal team who are
really passionate. They've gone all out
for Fatima Zaynab, Ali, Lotty, Sam. they
have put in their very best. We've got
strong legal arguments, so I am hopeful
um in that sense. But in terms of how
we've been treated over the past 2
years,
um how the legal system has shown itself
to be corrupt, and how the prosecution,
the judge has used um the law, hasn't
shown me much justice. So, yeah, I I'm
of two minds here.
I don't know about you, Emma.
>> Well, I I am anybody that knows me knows
that I am the glass is always half full.
I can always see the best, and I can
always be hopeful. But like Zaqina said,
um I have I have no hope whatsoever.
Elly's barrister was really excited
putting it in saying, you know, we've
got a great legal argument. And I said,
you had a great legal argument from the
start, and that's no reflection on them.
They've done an amazing job.
>> We saw when the prescription of
Palestine action was upheld um in the
courts, we saw how
how the judge um sitting on that case
made up and rewrote British history when
she spoke about the suffragettes. And
that makes you think that, you know,
they're willing to go to such lengths to
rewrite British history to justify
themselves.
>> Um I locked myself uh to to Parliament
in protest. And the very And I went I
actually went cuz I was hoping to see my
own MP, Tonia Antonazzi, from Swansea,
to look her in the eye. Um
but I didn't, but I later found out on
socials that she was there. All of the
women in the MPs, which apparently is
now about 40% of Parliament are women,
were all dressed as suffragettes that
day. On that day, you On that You
couldn't make it up.
They were there um
being proud to be women and following
the suffragettes.
>> Dolly, important but difficult words to
hear. I'm sure you'll agree.
>> Yeah, and I think that the mothers there
really summarized it, the stakes really
brilliantly.
You know, I I've said this before, um
but I'll say it again.
Terror legislation essentially functions
as a carve-out, an exception to what are
supposed to be
universal human rights, settled
questions of civil liberty, particularly
around criminal justice in a liberal
democracy.
Terror legislation basically says that
for these particular kinds of crime, we
are going to say that these ostensibly
universal rights do not apply. And this
affects a lot of different things. It
affects things like indefinite
detention, as was outlined by the
mothers of the prisoners there, it
impacts the consequences of prosecution.
You know, if you are prosecuted um and
convicted on a terror charge, you have a
minimum of 10 years of having to do
regular police notifications. That is
the kind of thing that is only reserved
other than terror legislation, it's only
really reserved for child sex offenses.
Um things like habeas corpus, things
like the kinds of evidence that can be
provided in a court,
sentencing limits. So, all of these
settled questions of civil liberties and
universal human rights get scrapped in
the context of terror legislation. And
you can convincingly argue that that
exception should not exist. And a lot of
lawyers do. They argue that, you know,
if a right is not universal, then it is
not a right. Um but if we are going to
have these exceptions,
the fact that in the original act, and
this goes to show that this is in the
DNA of this particular kind of
legislation, in the original act, you
leave the definition of what kind of
crime can fall as part of that exception
so broad, you are handing authoritarian
power to the state on a platter because
you are leaving it up to the state to
decide who and what can be prosecuted
under these carve-outs from normal civil
liberties and human rights.
Um and that's why terror law is used
around the world um by authoritarian
governments to crack down on political
opponents, to crack down um on free
speech, to to oppress minorities. And
the Palestine Action Case is so
important because it is testing the
guardrails of that original act, which
many civil liberties experts raised deep
concern about when it was first passed
because this is the first time that a
group has been proscribed on the basis
of property damage. This is the first
time we have seen people being hauled
off the street and prosecuted for
holding a sign. These are acts that are
not widely considered by the public to
be terror, you know, especially when the
same government that is going after
these people as terrorists is offering
financial and military and political
support to a state whose actions fulfill
any definition of terrorism and more. I
mean, talk about using violence to try
and secure political outcomes. Of
course, I'm talking here about the state
of Israel. Um and so if precedent is
created that says that the the the the
definition of a serious crime and the
definition of terror can be stretched
this widely, we are crossing a threshold
that is going to be very, very difficult
to roll back from. And that's why this
case is so unbelievably important it is
going to define what kind of state
Britain is over the next 10, 20, 30
years. And what kinds of
you know,
what what the the power that the state
has.
>> And there's no uh there's precious
little opposition politically in terms
of, you know, I guess elected members of
Parliament in a way that there was
opposition in the 2000s, right? I
remember the Haltemprice by-election
when David Davis stood down specifically
for what he saw was the erosion of civil
liberties and in terms of the
counter-terrorism act. Is there anything
that you're getting from anybody of the
supposed libertarians, the people who
believe in in individual liberty,
especially you know, the conservative
types who always claims want to do so
and yet
>> And and this is why the threshold is
very difficult to roll back on because
we've now forgotten that that was a
controversial thing. We forgotten that
there was an active debate and a and it
was controversial within the human
rights sector, within the civil
liberties sector to pass this act. But
now 20 years on, no one no one remembers
that. It's seen as completely settled.
And so that's where my concern is is
that once you pass these thresholds of
state power
people it becomes naturalized. People
get used to living in in a in a country
where state can do that. And that's
really really scary.
>> And again, people from like the liberal
side of politics in this country, they
point at Trump abusing terror
legislation to hold people off the
streets and
as the basis for a lot of stuff they did
with Venezuela and the boats or whether
it is
ICE terrorizing communities and they
have endless words of condemnation yet
radio silence when it comes to the
authoritarianism of
>> I mean this is the architecture that
Trump is using. We're building it
>> right here.
>> Exactly, the supposed the supposed lefty
party.
Now Novara's Harriet Williamson has also
written up a report on the appeals. So
you can read that article as well as
more of Harriet's excellent reporting on
Palestine Action on our website now.
That includes this piece called We're
the Canary in the Coal Mine which goes
into greater detail of the enhanced
vetting people had to go through to
communicate with the four prisoners.
Those links are in the description box
down below.