Five on Trial Over the Filton Elbit Raid: What Prosecutors Allege
Five people are on trial at Woolwich Crown Court charged with criminal damage and violent disorder over the raid at the Elbit Systems factory in Filton, near Bristol, in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
Criminal damage in this case means intentionally breaking or damaging property. Violent disorder refers to the use or threat of violence by a group. The defendants are Qesser Zuhrah, 21, Zahra Farooque, 26, Kamran Ahmed, 29, Heba Muraisi, 31, and Liam Mullany, 34. All five deny the charges. The Guardian
Prosecutor Deanna Heer KC told the jury the operation was divided between two teams with different jobs. Prosecutors allege a "red team" in red jumpsuits entered the factory to smash equipment including drones. Prosecutors allege the five defendants were part of a "black team" in black jumpsuits whose job was to overwhelm security guards.
The court was told a prison van driven by a red-team member crashed through the first perimeter fence around the factory at about 3.30am and then through a second perimeter fence. The red team allegedly used fire extinguishers filled with red paint to spray walls and floors and used crowbars and sledgehammers to smash computer equipment and drones.
The black team followed on foot shouting slogans including "Free Palestine" during the break-in. Heer told the jury the black team allegedly threatened and intimidated guards by throwing fireworks and brandishing whips, hammers and large kebab skewers. Security guards were whipped and sworn at, prosecutors said.
The court was told security guard Nigel Shaw suffered a 4cm laceration to his head after being attacked when other black-team members freed a detained colleague. The court was also told Shaw had struck a member of the black team across the back of the legs with an umbrella. The alleged raid plan described the face-covered black team as "coverts" who intended to leave without being caught, unlike the red team labelled "overts". On 15 April 2026, The Guardian reported that Palestine Action activists wanted to smash up Elbit Systems property, in an account of what the court was told about intent.
The Woolwich case follows other criminal cases linked to the Filton incident. In November 2025, six British pro-Palestinian activists went on trial accused of attacking a factory operated by Israeli defence firm Elbit. Reuters That hearing was told six pro-Palestinian activists armed with sledgehammers attacked an Israeli-linked defence firm, with one activist striking a female police officer twice. A separate Old Bailey jury in the Elbit Bristol raid trial was discharged on 19 August 2026 after 37 hours of deliberations after reaching one guilty verdict. BBC Judiciary.uk published sentencing remarks on 9 May 2026 for R -v- Charlotte Head and others concerning an action at Elbit's factory in Filton. A later judiciary ruling, Re Rajiv Menon KC, published 22 June 2026, states that Charlotte was not allowed to give further evidence about what was said about Elbit Systems at a Palestine Action training event.
Four members of the Palestine Action group could be sentenced under terrorism provisions over the 2024 Elbit factory raid, according to reporting on 11 June 2026. Al Jazeera The open judgment in R (Ammori) v SSHD of 13 February 2026 states that Palestine Action publicised the 6 August attack at Elbit in Bristol, described as a terrorist attack. The Crown Prosecution Service said on 5 September 2025 it will prosecute a further 24 people for showing support for Palestine Action, which it describes as a proscribed terrorist group. CPS Proscription is a formal legal ban on an organisation. The United Kingdom was granted permission on 25 February 2026 to appeal a ruling that the Palestine Action ban was unlawful. Reuters
The broader context here is a confrontation on two fronts. Criminal courts are being asked to decide guilt for damage, forced entry and assaults on guards. At the same time, higher courts are being asked to decide whether the ban on Palestine Action and the related support charges are lawful and how far they reach.
Looking at what this means for lawyers and courts, the near-term questions are about evidence and punishment. The distinction prosecutors draw between overts and coverts, the reported use of a vehicle, paint, crowbars and sledgehammers, and the disputed accounts of injuries to guards will affect findings on violent disorder. Any terrorism sentencing rules, and the result of the government's appeal on the ban, will affect legal risk well beyond the five defendants now before the jury.
The trial continues.
