Activists Convicted of Criminal Damage at Bristol Defence Factory Face Possible Terrorist Sentencing

Four activists who took part in a raid that caused £1 million of criminal damage at an Israel-linked defence factory in Bristol were convicted last week of criminal damage. One of the four was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer.

The raid took place on 6 August 2024. The activists used an old prison van to smash into the site while armed with sledgehammers and crowbars. They caused destruction to computers and drones and sprayed red paint across walls and floors using fire extinguishers.

Police and security guards intervened during the incident. In a pre-trial ruling that can now be reported, the judge found the charges had a terrorist connection. The ruling was made by Mr Justice Johnson. Palestine Action was banned as a terrorist organisation under a Government proscription order in July 2025.

The High Court declared that proscription order unlawful in February this year. The Court of Appeal is currently considering the Government's appeal against that decision. It is not yet known whether the appeal ruling will be delivered before sentencing on 12 June.

The judge may still consider a terror link to the raid when he passes sentence. Supporters of the defendants said jurors in the trial were not told of the terror link or the possibility of aggravated sentences. Sentences with a terrorist connection would be served in full and could be followed by years of monitoring by counter-terror police.

In pre-trial rulings the judge banned the defendants from presenting documents relating to their belief that the company supplied weapons to Israel and that Israel's military operations in Gaza were unlawful. The activists were allowed to state that the raid was part of a campaign of direct action to damage the company's property.

They were also permitted to say they believed the firm was supplying weapons for use in the war in Gaza and that they viewed Israel's actions there as unlawful. The judge ruled that such evidence must be limited. He stated it was not in dispute and that extensive presentation would be disproportionate and risk being misconstrued by the jury as an invitation to consider the legality of Israel's operations.