Six of the group known as the Filton 24 have been acquitted of the most serious charge of aggravated burglary in a high‑profile trial relating to a break‑in at the Filton factory of an Israeli arms manufacturer.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) told Woolwich Crown Court that it could not offer evidence to support the aggravated burglary charge, leading to not guilty verdicts on that count this week.
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.
The Filton 24 case stems from a direct action protest on August 6, 2024 when activists entered the Elbit Systems UK factory near Bristol at Aztec West.
They breached perimeter security and damaged key equipment, which activists said was used to manufacture military hardware supplied to the Israeli Defence Forces.
The six defendants acquitted this week had been held on remand for an extended period, raising concerns among legal observers about the use of counter‑terrorism powers and pre‑trial detention without timely trial.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
Prosecutors initially pursued aggravated burglary, a charge carrying a potential life sentence, but were unable to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the jury that the defendants had any intention to use unlawful violence against persons during the action.
The jury deliberated for more than 36 hours before returning the not guilty verdicts.
Three of the six, including Zoe Rogers, Fatema Zainab Rajwani and Jordan Devlin, were also found not guilty of violent disorder, with the jury unconvinced that the activists threatened or used violence against security staff or police officers at the site.
Supporters and civil liberties groups have described the verdict as a significant victory for protest rights and jury independence.
Campaigners argue that the aggravated burglary charge was used to justify prolonged imprisonment before trial and to paint direct action opposing arms manufacturing as inherently violent.
A spokesperson for the Filton 24 defence committee said the acquittal vindicated the defendants’ assertion that their intention was to disarm weapons and prevent violence, not to commit criminal acts of violence.
That proscription was ruled unlawful earlier this month by the UK High Court, which found the Home Office’s decision to be disproportionate and an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression and assembly.
Civil liberties groups welcomed the judgment, though the government has signalled its intention to appeal.
The Filton 24 saga has sparked broader debate over the balance between counter‑terrorism legislation, the right to protest, and how the justice system treats politically motivated direct action.
Critics of the government’s approach argue that invoking terrorism laws against activists undermines democratic norms and risks criminalising legitimate political dissent.
With the most serious charge now dismissed, many of the Filton 24 are expected to apply for bail in the coming weeks.
Defence lawyers say that even if retrials proceed, the lengthy remand periods served exceed potential sentences for the remaining counts.
