Lawyers say jury-tampering claims in Palestine Action trial ‘dangerous’ and ‘misleading’

Calls for a retrial amid claims of jury tampering in a recent Palestine Action trial at a UK  court are “misleading” and  “dangerous”, lawyers say.

On Wednesday, after more than 36 hours of deliberations, jurors at Woolwich Crown Court acquitted Leona Kamio, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, Jordan Devlin, 31, and Charlotte Head, 29, of charges of aggravated burglary.

All six defendants had denied the charges of aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder following a raid at a plant belonging to Israeli-owned weapons company, Elbit Systems, near Bristol on 6 August 2024.

The jury did not convict defendants Head, Corner and Kamio of violent disorder and acquitted Devlin, Rogers and Rajwani of the same charge. 

The jury was also hung on charges of criminal damage, despite five of the defendants admitting to destroying weapons and equipment belonging to the Israeli arms firm during the break-in.

Additionally, jurors did not return a verdict on the charge faced by Corner of grievous bodily harm with intent for striking a police officer with a sledgehammer.

The acquittals have prompted calls for a retrial on both charges of criminal damage and grievous bodily harm.

One critic of the verdict, Lord Walney, a former government adviser on political violence, highlighted that posters had been put up around the court’s vicinity setting out the principle of jury equity - the right of jurors to acquit on conscience. 

'It's actually misleading and really, really dangerous to suggest that there was any jury tampering'

- Audrey Cherryl Mogan, lawyer

He called for an investigation into whether signs placed outside the courtroom constituted “jury tampering”.

During the course of their deliberations, a juror submitted a note to the judge raising concerns that the posters, which had been put up along the route from Woolwich train station to the court, were "trying to influence the jury and their decisions". 

The judge responded by issuing directions to jurors to ignore the posters.

Lawyer Audrey Cherryl Mogan, who represents one of the defendants, emphasised to Middle East Eye that it is common for similar signs to be displayed outside protest trials.

“In fact, there's a plaque in front of the Old Bailey where the most serious criminal cases are heard that says the exact same thing,” Mogan said, referring to a plaque commemorating the 1670 Bushell’s case, which first established the principle of jury equity.

“It's never been referred to as jury tampering," she added. “It's actually misleading and really, really dangerous to suggest that there was any jury tampering.”

Jury independence

The principle of jury independence has stood continuously since the Bushell’s case, in which it was ruled that a jury could not be punished on the basis of the verdict it returned.

Today, a judge cannot direct a jury to convict, nor can jurors be punished for acquitting on conscience.

However, jurors are not informed about the principle by judges, while the defence counsel is barred from telling them.

Palestine Action defendants acquitted of aggravated burglary over arms factory raid

Read More »

The principle was reaffirmed in the case of Trudi Warner, a retired social worker who was referred to the attorney general by Judge Silas Reid for contempt of court, for holding a placard urging jurors to acquit on conscience during a climate protest trial on 27 March 2023.

In April 2024, a judge threw out the case, accusing the government lawyers of “mischaracterising” the evidence against Warner. Government lawyers appealed against the ruling, but subsequently dropped the case. 

The ruling found that the text on Warner’s placard “was informative” and “did not implore jurors to act or give an instruction”, adding that the text closely resembled that of the Old Bailey plaque.

During another climate protest trial in February 2024, Judge Reid instructed jurors that it is a “criminal offence for a juror to do anything from which it can be concluded that a decision will be made on anything other than the evidence in the case”. 

A Court of Appeal ruling in January this year, which found Judge Reid’s directions did not make the trial “unsafe", nonetheless upheld the principle of jury independence.

‘Morally compelled to destroy weapons’

This tension has hung over legal proceedings during the recent Palestine Action trial.

At the outset, Mr Justice Johnson instructed jurors that their views on Israel's actions in Gaza were "irrelevant," and directed that the defendants "were not entited to give evidence on their understanding of the background history of the Middle East and the reasons why they believed their conduct was lawful".

'You've got a whole range of ... cynical attempts by people in positions of immense power to influence the outcome of this trial'

- Tim Crosland, former government lawyer

But on 4 February, jurors submitted a note asking the judge if they could acquit the defendants on the basis that they “genuinely believed they were performing life-saving actions” and were “morally compelled to destroy weapons”. 

Mr Justice Johnson said they could not, and that the case had to be judged on the evidence alone, not on whether the defendants or the jury believed the defendants were morally justified. 

In his closing remarks, Rajiv Menon KC, who is representing Head, reminded the jury of its right to acquit on conscience.

Menon told jurors that the defendants had been “restricted” when giving evidence about their knowledge of Elbit Systems’ role in Israel’s war in Gaza. He also said it would be “ridiculous” for jurors to ignore that wider context and its impact on the defendants.

“How are you able to assess any of that if you ignore the wider context of what has been happening in Gaza and the impact that those events have had on these defendants?” Menon asked.

“Are you supposed to forget your pasts, your knowledge of the world, your experiences of life, your principles, your values, your wisdom, your common sense, your sense of what is right and wrong and fair and reasonable when you consider the evidence in this case? Of course not."

Insidious influence

According to former government lawyer Tim Crosland, statements by then-home secretary Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary Chris Philp and columnist Melanie Phillips ahead of the trial risked influencing the jury.

Campaign group Defend Our Juries wrote to Attorney General Richard Hermer on 30 September 2025, asking him to initiate proceedings against Philp for contempt of court over a series of statements in which he referred to activists “attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer”.

“He has presented to the media and to the public disputed allegations, which are soon to be the subject of jury trial, as established fact,” the letter read.

“That is a very insidious way of attempting to influence the jury,” Crosland said.

“You've got a whole range of attempts, cynical attempts by people in positions of immense power to influence the outcome of this trial. And it's quite something to witness, you know, the kicking and screaming when it doesn't go their way.”

He also pointed to the release of “highly edited, highly curated” bodycam and security camera footage of the incident at Elbit Systems as also risking influencing the jury.

Last Palestine Action hunger striker ends protest following organ failure

Read More »

Following the acquittals, Philp called for a retrial on the criminal damage charge and the charge faced by Corner of causing grievous bodily harm. 

He said it was in the public interest and that there is “sufficient evidence” for a realistic prospect of conviction, citing bodycam footage which allegedly shows Corner striking a female police officer in the back.

The prosecution’s case argued that Corner intended to cause Police Sergeant Kate Evans “serious injury”, which the defendant has denied, saying that he carried the sledgehammer solely “to damage the property”.

During the course of the trial, jurors heard evidence that Corner was sprayed with an incapacitant spray moments before the alleged attack, impairing his vision.

In reported comments shortly after his arrest, Corner told the police that he was “trying to protect” his female co-defendant, Kamio, whom he had heard screaming.

In remarks at the conclusion of the hearings, lawyer Tom Wainwright who represents Corner, told the court Corner was acting to defend his friend “in the heat of the moment with tools available to hand”.

Wainwright said that, contrary to the prosecution’s description of the action as “meticulously organised”, the activists’ plan went badly wrong. 

Missing CCTV footage

The court also heard that footage was missing from several security cameras covering areas of the factory floor where contested interactions between security guards and the defendants took place.

Jurors heard from PC Sarah Grant, a CCTV recovery officer tasked with retrieving the security footage from Elbit Systems, who said that she did not download footage from two cameras because they showed no movement, due to a low frame rate.

During the trial, the court was told that the defendants had also been confronted by security guards in the factory.

Bodycam footage presented to the jury appeared to show security guard Angelo Volante striking defendant Devlin in the neck with a sledgehammer, knocking him to the ground.

A series of images and a body map detailing Devlin’s injuries, including a black eye, was presented to the jury.

In another clip, Volante is seen brandishing a whip and running towards Devlin, who was unarmed. He then picked up a sledgehammer and swung it at Devlin and co-defendant Rogers.