Filton 6 Trial – Defendants’ closing speeches

The April trial of the Filton 6 has had many pauses for legal arguments and decisions, which under standard reporting restrictions we are prevented from publishing, although some of the issues have leaked out in foreign independent press and even in the House of Commons.

Today the trial reached the stage of closing defence speeches, normally delivered by legal representatives, but the jury heard this morning that the five defendants facing charges of Criminal Damage have suddenly decided to dispense with the services of their lawyers and would now represent themselves. Sam Corner, who faces an additional charge of Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent is in a different position, and his legal representative Tom Wainwright will remain as the only defence lawyer in court.

CLOSING SPEECHES BELOW: Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Jordan Devlin, Tom Wainwright on behalf of Sam Corner, and Zoe Rogers

Here is Charlotte Head’s powerful speech to the jury in full:

Hi. It might seem odd that I’m now speaking to you from out here, instead of in the dock – trust me it’s odd for me too. Sadly, despite how unbelievably kind and smart and wise my barristers are, after some decisions made by the court, I no longer feel like they are permitted to represent me in a way that does us all justice. So I’ve had to represent myself. This is a pretty scary situation so I apologise in advance if I seem a bit nervous.

I recently found out that it wasn’t until 1898 that a person who was charged with a crime in the UK could speak to the jury under oath during their trial. In that situation, I wouldn’t have been able to give evidence from the witness box like I did, let alone address you directly for my closing speech like I am now.

Under those conditions, me and my co-defendants would have had to sit quietly in the dock and await our fate, unable to tell you in our own words who we were and why we were sitting before you. I was unsurprised to learn that, in 1898, when the first person was allowed to answer the charges they faced from the witness box and testify to their own defence, many people, including prosecutors and judges, were worried about what would happen. Not because they feared that the defendants would lie but because they feared the jury sympathising more with normal people than the elites of the legal profession.

A long time has passed since then but it might be said that some prosecutors and judges still share that fear. A fear of the jury’s ability to be compassionate, to question the motives and integrity of the state, and to act as a barrier to the outcomes they want to achieve – namely to convict defendants. Not only that, but the government wants to get rid of juries. This isn’t a secret, politicians are openly discussing how to abolish trial by jury as we speak. They are frightened that you will listen to us, the defendants, when we talk to you and afraid of the power you hold as a jury. It’s entirely possible you may be one of the last juries to get to make decisions in a case like this before even that right is taken away from ordinary people.

Despite how it may (or may not) appear, I am not a confident person. Like most people, I find it difficult and uncomfortable to talk about the things those who know me say are my good qualities. In that regard, self-representing is extremely difficult for me so I will try to stick to the facts. Miss Heer [Deanna Heer KC, Crown prosecutor] said to you in her closing speech that, because we entered not guilty pleas, none of us were willing to “take responsibility for our actions”, but that’s not true. As she herself pointed out, I have said on multiple occasions that I dismantled weapons in the Elbit factory and that I set out to do so. I didn’t enter a not guilty plea to try and deceive a jury or attempt to “get away with” anything. I did so because I believed I was legally justified in doing what I did at the Elbit site and because, in my opinion, the narrow approach to the definition of ‘criminal damage’ misses one key thing: context. So that’s what I’m going to attempt to summarise for you now.

I was raised to believe that kindness and empathy were incredibly important. I was taught to support those around me and, as a pretty sensitive child, was always deeply affected when I saw others suffering. You heard in evidence that, just after I turned 20, I went to volunteer in the refugee camp in Calais. I don’t know what I was expecting but nothing could have prepared me for the sheer level of pain and needless suffering I saw there. I met people from all over the world, most of whom were seeking safety having fled conflict in their own countries. As volunteers, we tried to provide people with clothes, food, shelter – the basics to maintain even a shred of dignity, only to watch it routinely get taken away or blocked by the French police. When people got sick, we transported them to a clinic for the homeless because the main hospital often refused to treat refugees. When more and more people needed medical attention due to injuries sustained by the police, we started documenting these human rights abuses that were taking place on a daily basis. In the article Mr Menon [lead defence counsel, Rajiv Menon KC] showed you, I laid out some examples including chemical agents being sprayed into the mouths of refugees and children being kicked in the head while they were lying on the floor. I mentioned a 15 year old who was blinded by a rubber bullet shot at his head by the French riot police. I didn’t mention that I saw it happen and that I watched his friends rush his bloodied body into a volunteer’s car because ambulances routinely refused to transport refugees needing emergency care.

I was young, naive and not politically aware in any way when I arrived in Calais but how could events like this have anything but the most profound impact on me? How could it not shape the person I was becoming? Fast forward several years. In October 2023, events unfolded, events which have been deemed irrelevant to this case. Regardless, we all know what events occurred and, when they did, I had an excruciating sense of déjà vu. In Calais, I knew that it was money from the British government that was funding the state violence I was witnessing. It was British money that maimed a 15 year old child and left him for dead before my eyes. And regarding the events in late 2023, I was aware of the British complicity in housing weapons manufacturers on our soil, capable of inflicting the same devastation I had witnessed but on an exponential scale. So when I saw a genocide unfolding on my phone, livestreamed to us every day, I couldn’t sit back and do nothing when I knew that our government was once again directly involved.

So I went on the local marches in Cardiff – and the bombs kept falling. I went on the national demos in London – and cities and people were still being reduced to dust. My mental health plummeted watching what was happening and feeling helpless to stop it. As much as it felt necessary to do more, it was also somewhat self-serving because I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t feel like I’d done everything I could. So I moved back to London, got a job at a domestic abuse charity and tried to work out what other avenues were possible to try to stop what was happening in Gaza. I wrote to my MP, someone I knew to be sympathetic to the cause, and received only an automated response.

Then I discovered the pro-Palestine camp in Hackney, a camp set up on ground protected in the by-laws specifically for protesting. A camp that was trying to get the council to divest its pension funds from weapons manufacturers like Elbit and other complicit companies. I spent 2 months sleeping on the street at the camp by night and going to my job in the day. We stood on the pavement and encouraged people to sign our petition. We ran workshops to help inform the local community about how their council taxes were funding the horrors we were all seeing on our screens. We worked and worked to put together a proposal to help show the pension committee how feasible divestment was. And on the day of the deputation, after so much effort, the committee chairman pulled out a pre-printed statement that effectively told us that everything we’d done was pointless and that they weren’t going to listen to ordinary people like us. That we could never line the politicians’ pockets like these corporations could so our opinions were irrelevant.

Now, my motivations for joining Palestine Action are also not considered relevant evidence in this case but I can tell you that I joined during my time at the Hackney camp. I can tell you I signed up to a training day after months of campaigning and pleading and asking those in power to stop abetting Israel and housing companies like Elbit. And I can tell you that it felt like I had no other choice. No other options available because we’d tried them all. I can tell you that I signed up to do an action with Palestine Action, a group that has been trying to end British complicity in war crimes since 2020. That 4 Elbit sites have been permanently shut down by its direct actions, 4 sites connected to Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer that produces 85% of the Israeli military’s drones and land-based equipment.

When I was on the stand, I was asked why direct action is necessary and I told you that it’s because the government doesn’t listen when people like you and me “ask nicely”. They have too much invested, both politically and financially, to act on a moral basis. We tried “asking nicely” and playing by their rules and they flat out ignored us. I don’t believe that wanting to stop human suffering, to stop tens of thousands of innocent people being killed is a fringe belief. I believe it is a commonly held view that underpins what it means to live in a just and humane society. I don’t agree that just because something is deemed incorrect by those in power at this point in history means that it is the wrong thing to do. Slavery used to be legal. The apartheid in South Africa was deemed legal. Myriad evils have been legal at one point or another – but that does not make them justified.

During her closing speech, Miss Heer highlighted the sheer amount of character evidence you’ve heard in our defence cases and you might wonder, considering this, why we’ve been relatively quiet on our motivations for joining Palestine Action or signing up to the action at Filton factory? You might also wonder where, in all of this, is Elbit Systems? Where are the three security guards, who intimidated, threatened and assaulted us? Where is the member of Elbit security who initially decided what footage was relevant? Where is Witness Alpha? Why has no witness from Elbit been called to explain the impact of the action on the functioning of damaged drones and other weapons? Why is there no precise inventory of what was damaged or destroyed? You might feel it’s because they don’t want to highlight the weapons they’re making on British soil or that the narrative spun by the prosecution is incorrect. You might consider the contrast between Elbit Systems on one hand and me and my co-defendants on the other and wonder which one has been more open, honest and human with you.

So now I ask you, the jury, to remember the power you hold. Your fundamental right as jurors to decide the facts has been celebrated in the UK for centuries. Back in 1670, there was a case that definitively established the right of jury independence. Two Quakers, named William Penn and William Mead, were prosecuted for “preaching to an unlawful assembly”, which at that point boiled down to speaking to a group of more than 5 people in a way that displeased the Church of England. As Quakers, Penn and Mead had done just that and they were put on trial at the Old Bailey. At the end of the trial, the judge directed the jury to convict the defendants but the jury refused. Furious, the judge directed the jury again to convict, saying they would not be dismissed until they did, but again they refused to convict. The judge then remanded the entire jury to custody for 2 days and ordered they be denied food and water. One of the defendants apparently shouted to the jury as they were led to prison, “you are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right”, to which one of them, Edward Bushel, replied “nor shall we ever do”. After 2 days in prison, the judge again ordered the jury to convict the defendants and they again refused, returning a not guilty verdict. As a result, the judge fined the jury for contempt of court and remanded them in custody again until they paid the fines. 8 paid, 4 refused, including Bushel, who then petitioned the high court to release himself and his fellow jurors. The high court agreed, the jurors were released and the fundamental right of jury independence was established, protecting the right of a jury to return a verdict without fear of punishment. It is one of the most celebrated cases in British – and global – legal history.

So, all things considered, I ask you to hear the evidence we’ve been able to give you, hear what we’ve told you. 6 normal people speaking to 12 normal people, and to make your decisions with that in mind. Yes, some of that evidence speaks to our character, but it also speaks to the context that I mentioned at the start of my speech, context that even now I’m not allowed to fully explain to you.

When I was on the stand, I was asked if I had dismantled quadcopter drones, battle-simulators and other military equipment. And I said that I did, and that I did it whole-heartedly believing that I had a lawful excuse to do so. That belief is a fact, it’s what I believed at the time, largely thanks to the many, many previous Palestine Action trials about actions just like this one, where the jury returned a not guilty verdict on charges of criminal damage. In her closing speech, Miss Heer implied that she didn’t need to cross-examine us closely about criminal damage because it wasn’t necessary – but you may think it was because she didn’t want you to hear more detail about the weapons that we dismantled and what those weapons do. You might wonder if the reason Miss Heer didn’t cross examine me at all is because she didn’t want me to reiterate that I believed I had a lawful excuse.

There’s nothing more I can say to you than that. We may have acted as a group but I made the decision to partake as an individual because of what I believed, and each of you has an individual responsibility to make the decision you believe is right as a member of this jury. Your decision is yours alone. Regardless of the outcome of this trial, whatever you may decide about my fate, nothing will convince me that what I did was morally wrong and that’s enough to help me sleep at night. I made a decision, based on the evidence available to me, and I did what I thought was the only right option. I hope you, as the jury, feel able and free enough to do the same.

—

Ms Head’s defence counsel Rajiv Menon KC watched from the public gallery as she delivered her speech.

—

The next self-represented speech was from Ms Leona Kamio:

Before starting, I want to reiterate what Lottie said – I didn’t fire my barrister because they’re not good, they’re amazing, and I couldn’t feel better represented by the legal team. But I think it’s really important, given the circumstances that we’re in now, that you hear from me.

It might seem strange from the outside that someone like me would do something like this. I haven’t done amazing things like Lottie or dedicated myself to activism. I’m a musician/farmer/forest school nursery teacher from Swansea, and I’ve been just living my life figuring out how to make the world a little bit less shit in my own way. I guess everyone blames their parents for everything, but I do think the way that I was raised led me to be where I am today. Credited largely to my mum, who you’ve heard a lot about and seen on the link the other day. Growing up, watching her, always going out of her way to help people as a nurse and a homeopath, treating loads of different types of people from all walks of life. She taught us – me, my brother and my little sister – how to have empathy and to imagine what it’s like to be somebody else.

I’m half-Japanese, if you hadn’t already guessed, and though my dad wasn’t always around, I grew up with a strong sense of Japanese culture. At the centre is honour – doing what is honourable, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you feel. For example, back in the day, if you were a samurai, there is a ritual known as ‘seppuku’. They would fall on their own sword if they were caught by the enemy, to restore honour or to protest injustice. I’m glad they’ve moved on from that. But how could I be raised the way that I was and watch the annihilation of human beings and do nothing? The conflict of going to work, playing and teaching young children, then going home to watch videos of similar children lose everything that makes them feel safe, is what compelled me to act in defence of those children.

You have heard a statement from Cosmo’s mum. Even though he was only three when I looked after him he’s the coolest dude that I know. He’s gentle, considerate and loves being silly – he is the centre of his mum’s world. Every one of the kids that I looked after was the centre of someone’s world – their mum, their dad, their grandparents – and to imagine what it would be like for any of them with what was happening in Palestine it literally broke me. I was sick of crying on my bed, witnessing massacres and feeling helpless. And that was the moment that I signed up to Palestine Action.

In the prosecution speech, you were told to think about the many defendants that appear before the criminal courts in this country. But you’re not here judging them, nor are you responsible for the criminal justice system, where some people are prosecuted and some people are in the Epstein files walking around free. You’re here to judge us, to decide whether I go back to prison or not.

The prosecutor told you that if you didn’t convict me, the law would be incapable of providing any protection to anyone. I don’t understand how anyone could say that in the context of this case, unless they don’t see Palestinians as human beings.

The prosecution’s whole case against us has been quite disingenuous and contradictory. The prosecutor told you yesterday that their case has just been all about damage, and it doesn’t matter who we are or why we did what we did. But many parts of the evidence that they presented weren’t about damage at all. They were about trying to discredit us as people. We spent about a day going through the sequence of events, though it felt like much longer to all of us, but how much of it was actually relevant to the issue of damage? Why did you need to know that I may have been hungover after a party? Did the homeopathy messages from my mum help you work out whether we damaged anything? And of course the video of Fatema Zainab and Lottie laughing, when they had no idea of what had just happened to Sergeant Evans. Was that there to help you work out whether we damaged anything? Obviously not. It was there to convince you that we’re bad people.

While these moments have been quietly drip-fed through the case, on the surface the prosecutor accepts that we’re people of good character. The most disingenuous part of the prosecution case has been the allegations of me intimidating security guards and resisting arrest. I am not charged with threatening anyone or resisting arrest. So if the prosecution were really so sure of their case, then they would say it, and prosecute me.

The first thing that you might have noticed about the prosecution case is that they didn’t call a single security guard to give evidence. The prosecutor asked you to see things from Volante’s perspective [described in evidence as the most violent of the Elbit security guards], and you could have. She chose not to call him or any security guard to actually give evidence, because they know that they were the ones intimidating us. And if that wasn’t true, they would have called them to the stand.

The truth is that the security guards, like Elbit itself, have been shielded and sheltered by the state.

If this was a shop that we’d broken into, which I would never do by the way, then you’d expect the owner to come to court. You’d expect him to list all of the items that were damaged, and describe the impact it’s had on his business. But where is Elbit? You’ve heard a very detailed and very boring inventory of the tools we brought to dismantle the weapons. You even have – behind Tab 10 – pictures with information like the brand and the weight and the material of every single tool. So where is that information about the weapons that we dismantled? If this case is supposedly only about damage, then where is the inventory?

And I think that brings me to the CCTV. Everything that we’ve heard about the CCTV system came second-hand from PC Sarah Grant. Once again, the prosecution did not want to put an Elbit Systems employee in front of you to answer for themselves. They know that the explanation of why there is missing footage doesn’t make sense. The low frame rate cannot explain the missing footage. You’ve seen it. We spent way longer than a minute in that alcove. No matter how low the frame rate was, it’s impossible that nobody was pictured on that camera, where Volante was being incredibly violent. Coincidentally, we don’t have any body-worn footage from the alcove either. We also don’t have CCTV of the area where Luke [another Elbit guard] had Lottie screaming on the floor, or body-worn. Or when Mr. Volante hit Jordan in the neck with a sledgehammer – you only saw that because it’s captured on police body-worn.

PC Phoebe Webber accepted that there were CCTV cameras that covered all of these areas, and we know that security all had body-worn cameras. Sarah Grant accepted that someone would have to set the frame rates, but of course, Witness Alpha [described as a senior Elbit employee whose identity has been withheld from defence lawyers] , who hasn’t been here at all, couldn’t remember the password to access the settings. Could anyone really believe that a multi-million pound weapons and technology company that specializes in surveillance drones didn’t have a CCTV system that worked?

The prosecution said yesterday that I was resisting arrest, but I’ve already explained that I was screaming in pain and fear, and I think that’s pretty clear from the footage. She told you incorrectly that my attitude towards the police is due to a conversation that I had with my mum when I was nine. In that conversation, my mum taught me that if I am afraid of a man, I should not show weakness. I should make myself loud. My distrust of the police comes from when a policeman beat my auntie up, before I was born. I don’t know what experiences others have had with the police, but different communities have different experiences with them. That just means that some of us are more afraid of them than others. It doesn’t mean that I was resisting arrest, because that would be stupid of me when Palestine Action told us over and over again not to resist arrest. And as I said in my evidence, when I said I’m complying now, I meant that a minute ago I was mid-smash, which obviously isn’t complying. When I say not complying, I mean that the six of us chose not to sit by and do nothing.

We are all very different people with very different upbringings, personalities, interests, careers and ambitions, but we are all compassionate nerds. I didn’t know any of them before this, but going through this together, we’re bonded for life, even if they don’t want to be. Somehow, being in prison, not getting proper sleep or allowed a shower or fresh air, we have kept each other sane enough to get through this. And I’ve gotten to know each of the extraordinary humans that sit in the dock over there. And whatever happens to us, I will be forever proud and grateful they are by my side.

People always ask me, do you regret it? Although I am terrified of the consequences, because I’m not a psychopath, I will never regret trying to save a child’s life. The prosecutor said we are all born with good character, and I’ve seen this first-hand working with children. Every day I would have conversations with these tiny, wonderful human beings and I’d simplify things in a way that they could understand. I got to understand that a child’s view of the world is profoundly simple – what is right and what is wrong.

This is not everything I’d like to tell you but I’m so scared of the consequences of saying something that I’m not permitted to that I can only hope that this is enough.

Yesterday the prosecutors said that we refuse to take responsibility. That’s not true. The truth is that our system puts the power in the hands of ordinary people to decide whether we’re guilty or not. For those of us that aren’t in power, we go through our lives feeling powerless and like we don’t have a choice sometimes. But today, you are the people in power and you are the ones with the choice. Regardless of who the state decides to protect, I have faith in people. And that’s why I am standing in front of you. Thank you.

---

 

Fatema Zainab Rajwani also represented herself, making the following speech:

Good morning, members of the jury. You have heard from me once already. I apologise if I seem a bit nervous. This is my first time doing anything like this. It is a bit of a nerve-wracking situation. As many of you already know, this type of closing speech is usually given by a defence barrister who is a legal expert. And again just to reiterate what Lottie and Ellie (Charlotte and Leona) have already said, I did not fire my barrister. I simply wanted to speak to you as an ordinary person, and I wanted to take this chance to speak to you, not in legal terms or arguments, but as an everyday person just like you.

My name is Fatema Zainab Rajwani. I am 21 years old. I have no previous convictions or cautions to my name. I was born in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, which is just on the coast of East Africa, to a British Asian mother and an African Asian father. I spent my childhood there and I spent my childhood moving between London and Tanzania. I interacted with almost everyone from all walks of life. It taught me kindness, compassion and acceptance regardless of difference, regardless of what someone looked like or where they came from. It taught me that everyone, no matter who they are, deserves dignity and safety and respect – values that I still try to live my life by. It is these values I see enshrined into this country that has become my home. This country which has a beautiful, rich history of love and solidarity and descent, of women, queer people, and people of colour who fought bravely for those rights, so that people like us, people like me, be allowed to live, to work, to study, and most importantly, to have a right to a fair trial by a jury of our peers – by a jury of my peers in fact, as Mr. Wainwright just said, women weren’t even allowed to serve on juries until post-1920s, when the suffragettes fought for our right to be on a jury. And not until later than that, when we could be on a jury without restrictions that depended on property. And people of colour weren’t even allowed onto a jury until 1969, so I would have been lost on both counts to be able to judge someone of their character and of a crime that they had been accused of.

If not for people like them, two-thirds of the prosecution would not even be allowed to present their case to you – two thirds of it! And you are able to serve on this jury because people dared to imagine a better world. People believed that they could change it for the better, despite any opposition. And it is because of these people that have fought for us that we have one of the best, one of the most celebrated legal systems in the world. Because of our juries – because they are diverse and include 12 ordinary people from all walks of life who bring together their experience, their humanity, their compassion, to look at the facts of this case – any case – and judge them, and to deliver a verdict of the facts of the case as you see them to be. And you will go out very soon to make a choice – a very important, permanent choice – that has been entrusted to you by society and by us as defendants. And it is a choice that today, tomorrow, for as long as you live, you will have to stand by, and it will remain with you forever.

Over the last few weeks, you have heard lots of evidence from the prosecution, a whole sequence of events in multiple bundles. And you also heard from us.

In my case, you have heard that I am 21 years old – that I was 19 years old when I decided to take action with Palestine Action against Elbit Systems UK – that I had just turned 20 when that prison van crashed through the shutters of Elbit’s newest research and development facility in Filton in Bristol. You have heard about the GoPro I had strapped to my helmet, I told you, to document the fact that Elbit was making these drones, these killer drones in these factories. You’ve heard me – in that witness stand – own up to disarming those drones because they were going to kill children. And I told you how I was sick of waiting for the government to dig this well for me. I used this quote that I was done waiting for someone to dig a well for me. I decided to dig the well myself. And I meant by that, instead of waiting for these weapons to stop, I went straight to the source.

You’ve heard how I was still just barely 20 when we were arrested in that factory and then re-arrested again under the Terrorism Act, and still despite not being charged with any terrorism-related offences, when we were subsequently held without communication with our families for weeks, for weeks on end at 20. I’d never lived out of home previous to that, by the way. That was the longest I’d ever gone without speaking to my mother. And then subsequently imprisoned. [Fatema took a moment to regain composure, tearing up at this time.]

The prosecution has told you that there’s no dispute about the fact that there was damage caused, but that is regardless of the fact that not a single witness from Elbit was called and you’ve heard this from other people. Not a single witness from Elbit was called to confirm that damage, to corroborate that story. Nor was an inventory produced of the damage caused. So how can you be sure? How can you be sure without any cold, hard facts that the prosecution have convinced you beyond reasonable doubt, members of the jury, that this damage, although by our own admission was caused, was really and truly criminal damage? Again, without proof of fact to even corroborate it. Where in evidence has the prosecution shown anything beyond a few disarmed weapons, some paint, and an endless tirade of increasing security violence?

The simple fact, members of the jury, is that the prosecution has failed to fulfill their burden of proof to a criminal standard. They did not even seek to adduce numbers, or cold hard facts, relying instead on an admission from us rather than their own witnesses, while simultaneously calling us irresponsible and stating that we are refusing to take accountability. You’ve heard the thinly veiled criticism from the prosecution about exercising our right to plead not guilty, and it is a right to plead not guilty. They have presented this to you as a way to put the blame on us, to say that we have refused to take responsibility for our actions. When each and every one of us has stood in that witness box, not once, multiple times, to attest to what we did within that factory, each one of us has told you that we volunteered to be accountable for our actions, that we were willing to do a high level arrestable action that would lead us right here all these months later to stand in front of you.

We knew we were going to end up here in front of you all, that we went into this action to be held accountable by you. And I’m not ashamed, I am not ashamed to stand here before you. On the contrary, it is my privilege and my honour to stand trial for disarming Israeli military drones. It is my honour to stand in front of you as someone who has told you from this stand that the belief that drives their life is simple, that to save one life is to save all of humanity.

And you are 12 ordinary people – my peers in society, who today act as the backbone of our legal system.

I do not wish to try and prove my innocence, as it is not my job to. It is the job of the Crown to provide evidence beyond any reasonable doubt (which means if you have any doubt at all, you must find us not guilty), of my guilt. And it is my inalienable right, fought for by those before me, to stand in this courtroom and ask you to really think about whether the prosecution have actually proved my guilt, or have they hidden the fact that there is no way to find any of us truly guilty, behind prosecutorial overreach?

God knows how much of our tax money poured into on-screen animations. And even though they tried to explain it, the fact that they do not even have access to all of the CCTV and body-worn. All the might of the Crown could not produce that CCTV and those body-worn cameras, from everything that happened inside that factory.

Our pleading not guilty is not a way to shed responsibility or to avoid guilt. I’m going to say that again. Our pleading not guilty is not a way to shed responsibility and is not a way to avoid guilt. It is guilt that the prosecution has made incumbent on us, despite the fact that we have yet to receive a verdict – despite the fact that they have already failed to fulfil the burden and standard of proof, and yet seek to try and convince you that our guilt is foretold, that it has already been set in stone. They have predetermined your verdict and your decision and made it for you, and in doing so have taken away from you the fact that there are still two verdicts to return, guilty and not guilty. And the choice has been entrusted to you and to you only to find true facts of this case, based on the evidence you have heard in the witness box and what the prosecution has produced or failed to produce also. Thank you.

---

 

We’ll try to bring you Zoe Rogers’ speech as soon as we can, but move on now to the final defendant Jordan Devlin who addressed the jury as follows:

KC Heer seemed to have a lot to say to me in her closing speech. [A reference to Deanna Heer KC – the prosecution Counsel]. I would firstly like to touch on some of these points. Some of the ideas she had were not put to me on the stand. This is because the prosecution know excessive force was used against me and was completely unjustified. She works hard to undermine my testimony, because it is the truth of my account that undermines the case she advances.

KC Heer told you that we take no responsibility, that we leave that to you – that is correct in law – it is for you to decide, not me. It’s for you to decide the verdicts.

But you know what? We’re here. It’s Elbit who are avoiding accountability for their actions. Where is Volante and where is Witness Alpha?

In the context of us all being born with good character, Ms Heer says that if people were acquitted on good character, the law would be incapable of providing protection to anyone. The law has already failed to protect those innocents born of good character killed by Elbit weapons.

Now KC Heer put it to you that I could see [PC]Buxton arrest Sam [Corner]. She failed to ask me if I recognized this person was the same as the one who had had me in a headlock, or if I was even looking at the arrest. This is all to suggest I knew that he was police. She calls it a fanciful explanation. Well, perhaps she’s glossed over the fact Volante [Elbit security guard] was assisting with that arrest – security guard, not police – and that is in your evidence. If she calls my account fanciful, I describe her account as desperate.

KC Heer remarked, contrary to what Mr. Devlin said, that security were entitled to use force. I’m afraid KC Heer has taken creative licence. I in fact said they do not have the right to be violent. I wouldn’t hope KC Heer asserts that Volante had the right to hit me in the face with a sledgehammer, because he did not.

Now, I’ve decided to represent myself so that I can tell you my truth, but this is my fantastic barrister, Andrew Morris, over here, still standing with me and guiding me through the whole process.

The only evidence that I damaged any property was when asked, I said, yes, I did it. And I was honoured to do so, because although it has been nice to be free since February, and despite being beaten up, I do not regret signing up for this action. Nothing Volante could have done to me would make me regret this, because the effect world events had on my mental health was hell.

You the jury have massive power in shaping the future of British protest law and British history. We did the right thing, and you do not need to explain your verdicts, you have the independence to make your own minds up about all of the facts you’ve heard. Make the right decision according to all of these facts.

You might find that there is no case to answer. The burden of standard of proof must account for the value of products damaged. Well, is it not true that the value of these products is actually deeply in negative territory? You have heard evidence of what this property is, that I’m accused of damaging. Consider what this property is and what it takes away from society.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would love to tell you so much more, and I can’t talk on these topics, and I can’t tell you why. I invite you to find a verdict of not guilty. I invite you to find that the answer to question two is no.

---

 

As mentioned at the top, Sam Corner retained his legal representative, Tom Wainwright [Garden Court Chambers], and this was Mr Wainwright’s closing speech on his behalf:

There is no dispute, as Ms Heer said in Closing, that on 6^th August 2024 PS Evans was doing her job as a public servant. There is no dispute that she did not deserve to be injured. Of course you will feel sympathy for her, I’m sure everyone in this courtroom does. But, you have been directed, sympathy and emotion can play no part in your decision. And yet, Ms Heer said to you in Closing yesterday that if you decide Sam Corner may have been acting in defence of another, it will be your pleasure to acquit him. A deliberate choice of words, a cheap and cynical call to emotion and sympathy. It’s not about pleasure, it’s about reaching the right, proper and true verdict.

To get to the right, proper and true verdict, let me start at the end.

“I was protecting her”. Sam Corner’s words, right at the end of the events of 6^th August 2024, the events that brought him here today, give you the clearest possible indication as to what his motivation, his sole purpose and his only intention was when he swung the sledgehammer that night, and that is really what this case is about.

I was protecting her. Four words which were barely mentioned and wholly unexplained in the prosecution speech.

• There is no dispute that he said it, it was part of PS Evans’ evidence, part of the prosecution case and unchallenged by me;
• It was obviously not something he had thought about in advance and planned to say beforehand. Because it was not part of the plan for any of this to happen beforehand.
  • It was not part of the plan going into the factory for him to use the sledgehammer as a weapon and the prosecution do not suggest that it was. That has never been their case in this trial;
  • It was not the plan for security guards to come in to the factory;
  • It was not part of the plan for Mr Corner to be PAVA sprayed;
  • It was not part of the plan for Ms Kamio to be tasered and then knelt on, causing her to scream in pain;
  • It was not part of the plan for him to use the sledgehammer in this way and it never crossed his mind that he would need to so there is no reason that he would have thought up a false explanation for doing so beforehand;
• Equally obviously, this was not a false explanation that he thought up on the spur of the moment. Having been taken to the floor and handcuffed, still reeling from the effects of the PAVA spray, not having realised quite what had happened, still feeling overwhelmed and confused, I don’t think any of us would have the presence of mind in those circumstances to manufacture a lie. And that would certainly be beyond Mr Corner’s ability, you may think, having seen him give evidence. You may conclude that thinking on his feet is not his strong point. That in stressful situations he struggles to articulate let alone fabricate.

The only explanation for that evidence is that this was an instinctive, truthful and accurate explanation from him of what had just happened. It is at the very heart of this case.

We are here because in the circumstances as he believed them to be, with his senses impaired and acting on instinct, Sam Corner did what he honestly believed needed to be done in order to protect someone who he thought was being seriously injured. Working back, the level of force used tells you how seriously he believed that person was being assaulted and how urgent was the need to act. Put another way, Sam Corner would not have taken this action unless he genuinely believed that it was necessary and reasonable to do so in order to prevent serious injury.

“I was protecting her”.

Every piece of evidence you have heard, every step along the path that lead him to be on that factory floor is consistent with that explanation. None of it is consistent with the prosecution explanation, such as it is, which appears to be that Sam Corner – a lifelong pacifist who had never committed an offence in his life – got frustrated and made a deliberate decision to injure a police officer for no reason.

I’m going to go through the evidence in order:

1. Sam Corner’s background and character, who he is as a person;
2. The planning of this action;
3. The behaviour of the security guards;
4. The arrival of police;
5. The swinging of the hammer;
6. The aftermath.

You have heard and will hear from the other defendants in relation to Count One. I’m going to focus primarily on Count Two and the allegation of Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent as that is a count faced by Sam Corner alone. And I’m going to invite you to focus on the evidence not as if you were viewing through this CCTV or BWV, not through your eyes, but through Sam Corner’s eyes and how he perceived it.

In order to do that, you need to walk a mile in his shoes, so let’s start with Sam Corner himself and what you heard about him:

1. An academic, an Oxford graduate, – a mathematician, a linguist and a philosopher. Clearly very intelligent, but also noticeably someone who excels in subjects or branches of subjects which are concerned with the theoretical, not the practical. A particular sort of intelligence. Translating languages, not using them in public to communicate. Decoding words and numbers, but not applying them. Able to absorb text in the abstract in the calm of the university library, helped by his synaesthesia, but who struggles to take in unfamiliar, fast-moving, real-world events;
2. A young man who cares a great deal about people. Who gives away what little he has to help others, that’s how much he cares. Who, because he finds social situations and reading social cues difficult, worries a lot – not for himself – but worries that he might say the wrong thing and make other people uncomfortable. That’s who he is. Someone who even worries about hurting other people’s feelings, let alone the idea that he may cause someone else physical pain. A young man who was moved to act for no reason other than to prevent human suffering. To stop people suffering pain, injury and trauma, not to cause it.
3. A man of good character:

• Someone who had never been arrested before. Never even been in a fight before. Described in his character references as someone who finds any form of violence abhorrent. Someone who is caring, gentle, compassionate;
• Someone who has been on marches, helped out at the university encampment, but who had never been involved in any direct action, anything like this before. Who has no experience of the reality;
• Someone who had prospects. Who had plans for the following year, to continue his education. Who, you may think, was unlikely to have used unnecessary violence for that reason too. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that this would inevitably make things much more serious. Destroying any plans, not just for the following academic year, but for a long time after that. As he told you, he would not have joined this action if he thought there was any risk of violence. He clearly never thought that he might be arrested by counter-terrorism police or spend nearly two years in prison. The possibility of violence being any part of this action simply was not on his radar, was not who he is and was not part of the plan.

You can also take into account your own impression that you formed from seeing Sam Corner in the witness box. Softly spoken, anxious, hesitant. Not someone who is verbally articulate under pressure, but this isn’t a public speaking competition and you may conclude rigid, old-fashioned cross-examination isn’t helpful. Repeatedly asking the same questions, putting hypotheticals, criticising him for answering question literally isn’t fair. Take into account the directions that you were given in relation to Mr Corner’s autism and ADHD and make all due allowance for that, although it may be that given his memory difficulties, the main point you can take away from his evidence is how he came across.

Ms Heer says to you in closing that his presentation in the witness box was very different to his presentation in the factory. Well, yes, when he was in the witness box you didn’t have Mr Warner unexpectedly running in the door, you didn’t have Ms Gargitter waving an umbrella around and you didn’t have Ms Heer hitting him in the throat with a sledgehammer – much as she may have wanted to at certain points. [Warner and Gargitter are the other prosecution lawyers]

Of course a person reacts differently in different circumstances, but that doesn’t make you a different person. You don’t throw everything you know about someone’s character out the window. That wasn’t confidence and control, that was fear and anxiety. That wasn’t bravery, it was bravado. You can hear it in his voice that he is out of his depth, scared and concerned and he is doing what he needs to do to defend himself and others, and no more.

Ms Heer seeks to undermine his character by saying that he has declined to take responsibility for his actions. Well I imagine she says that in every trial where a defendant has had the temerity to plead Not Guilty. It doesn’t actually help you.

Actually, putting together everything you know about Sam Corner – his character, his demeanour, his personality. None of it is consistent with the prosecution case.

 

So let’s turn to the plan. I only need to deal with this briefly as it has only featured briefly and most, if not everything, that the defendants have told you about it hasn’t been challenged. So just three points:

1. There has been no challenge to the defendants’ evidence that they were repeatedly told that security guards wouldn’t come in, that they would just call the police and leave them to it, and no challenge to the defendants’ evidence that they believed it. In fact there has been no suggestion that this isn’t what has happened in every other previous action. And so the prosecution can’t say Sam Corner didn’t believe that or even say he would be naïve to believe it, because for all we know it’s true. We certainly know that these defendants were reliant on what they were told by others, none of them having been involved in anything like this before. Particularly for Sam, who has perhaps rigid thinking and difficulty in seeing things from other people’s perspective, the chances of security guards coming into the factory would have seemed negligible, the reasoning for them doing so unfathomable;
2. Know from the planning that Sam Corner agreed to wear the GoPro, so he has in mind before he goes in and while he is in that factory that everything he is doing is on film. He would be conscious of it because he is supposed to be looking for intelligence on Elbit’s activities. And as a matter of common sense, you wouldn’t unlawfully assault someone if you know that you were wearing a GoPro which was recording your every action. Even if it is being transmitted rather than recorded on the device, there is still a risk that the authorities may obtain it or intercept it or even recover it after it has been deleted. You wouldn’t do anything unless you genuinely thought it was justified. If it had crossed his mind, he would have known that using unjustified violence would not help Palestine Action’s cause. Obviously it wouldn’t, quite the opposite. It would be used against Palestine Action by those who want Elbit’s factories to continue unchallenged;
3. There is no mention in the planning of a fundamental part of the prosecution case. That it was part of the plan, if detained, to shout and scream and pretend to be injured. Everything else is planned out, but not this. There was no such plan. The prosecution have just made it up to try and explain Ellie Kamio’s actions and Sam Corner’s instinctive response. To protect her.

 The planning is not consistent with the prosecution case.

 

And then we come to what happens in the factory and when the plan goes wrong and security guards start coming into the factory. Even then, Sam Corner does not use his sledgehammer to strike or injure or incapacitate any of them. To try and get them out of the warehouse or to protect himself and others.

Even during whatever happens with Mr Luke at the start. There is obviously something happening off camera, you can hear Charlotte Head screaming. If Sam Corner had wanted to lie to you he could have said anything about what Mr Luke did at that point, but he hasn’t. He’s told you can’t remember.

Even when Mr Shaw comes in and, you can see if you pause the footage, has his umbrella raised and you can see later on when you line the footage up, raises his umbrella which causes Mr Corner to raise his sledgehammer. It’s not about how much of a threat Mr Shaw posed, Mr Shaw was in the factory and wasn’t leaving. Sam Corner couldn’t turn his back on him as he didn’t know what he’d do. Sam wanted to get on with damaging weapons and wants Mr Shaw to leave but at no stage does he even nudge him with the sledgehammer, he tried to dissuade him – “you’ve only got a fucking umbrella”. When he raises the umbrella he knocks it back down, it doesn’t appear he does so very hard as the umbrella doesn’t seem broken afterwards.

Even when Mr Luke is grabbing hold of Leona Kamio’s sledgehammer and she falls to her knees, Sam Corner doesn’t make contact with him.

Even when Mr Shaw is still refusing to leave, he says “come with me I’ll show you how you can get out”. And when he sits down Sam just leaves him alone. This is not someone who is hellbent on violence.

Even when confronted with Mr Volante actually using physical force against Jordan Devlin, Mr Corner doesn’t use physical force in response. His response is only to try and knock the sledgehammer out of Mr Volante’s hands, so he can’t cause any further injury. He was protecting Mr Devlin. And he doesn’t strike the hammer that hard, as Mr Volante keeps hold of it. Even at that stage, he had no intention, no thought to cause injury.

If he thought the security guards were fair game, why not strike them at any of those points. That’s an important part of the prosecution case in relation to PS Evans. It is put to Sam Corner that if he thought she was a security guard he thought she was fair game to be assaulted. Well if that was the case, why is that not reflected in his behaviour to the security guards beforehand. Throughout all of these confrontations, not one involved physical contact or even attempted physical contact with the security guards themselves. Why not? Because he only did what was necessary and reasonable to do so in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

Ms Heer said to you in closing, but look at it from Mr Shaw’s point of view, look at it from Mr Volante’s point of view. But you haven’t heard from any of the security guards. If it would have helped the prosecution case, the prosecution could and would have called them to give evidence. It was said in closing that Sam Corner was not acting in self-defence in relation to the security guards, but it won’t have escaped your notice that there are no counts on the Indictment relating to Mr Shaw, Mr Luke or Mr Volante. You may decide that weakens the prosecution’s stance, and actually the interactions with the security guards do not support the prosecution case.

—

And then shortly after the police arrive. Sam knew they would arrive at some point, he didn’t know it would be then. Even if he had heard Mr Luke say that police were on their way, it doesn’t make any difference.

But you take into account all the points I made with PC Buxton and view this not through BWV or CCTV but through Samuel Corner’s eyes. The alarms are going off, there is a clingy, toxic smell – enough to make PC Buxton feel sick. Imagine the impact this is having. Remember when Sam was giving evidence and he asked about a high-pitched noise in the courtroom which I don’t think anyone else could hear. Imagine being in that situation when you are that sensitive to noise. When he tells you he was overwhelmed, he was overwhelmed. And when you are overwhelmed, you don’t take in the details.

So in the three seconds between coming round the corner and the PAVA spray being deployed, two seconds of which he is looking at what’s going on with Mr Volante and Mr Devlin, of course he wouldn’t have registered a small bit of writing saying POLICE. You can see it on the footage, it’s not that big. Even if you weren’t someone who had difficulty paying attention at the best of times, even if you were focussed on PC Buxton rather than the angry, soapy, shouty man coming towards you, even then you’d still have had difficulty distinguishing between security and police. If you look at their uniforms they are very similar, down to the similar white writing in exactly the same place, in a very similar font, saying SECURITY. No doubt that’s intentional by security to make them look like police officers to the casual observer.

Even if he had seen Leona Kamio being Tasered, that wouldn’t mean he knew these were police or that she was being arrested. From Sam Corner’s point of view, having been unexpectedly confronted with several security guards, what look like more security guards run in. One of them has just struck Jordan Devlin with a hammer, knocking him down. Security seem to be escalating things, getting heavy handed.

And the next thing he knows is that he can’t see.

You have agreed facts about the effects of PAVA spray. It’s a highly effective incapacitant. It causes temporary blindness, eyes to close and tears to run. It causes severe pain and nausea. I don’t make any criticism of PC Buxton for deploying his PAVA spray, didn’t explore with him the reasons for doing so or his perception of whether it was necessary, as it’s not about that, its simply the fact that it happened which is so important in understanding what took place afterwards. There can be no doubt that this was the effect it was having on Sam Corner from hereon in. You can see it on the footage, groaning, rubbing his eyes. He told you about the all-consuming pain. Trying to force his eyes open. And so when you view events through his eyes from now on, that vision is blurred, he is confused, disorientated.

An autistic young man, in an unfamiliar place and an unfamiliar scenario. Alarms going off. Smoke in the air. PAVA in his eyes. You may remember the evidence that was read from PC Neale who arrested Charlotte Head some time later. They said that when they started to caution her they had to stop because even then due to the alarm, the smoke and the residue of the PAVA on Ms Head, they became so disorientated that they couldn’t continue. So imagine what it was like twenty minutes earlier.

And in those circumstances, having just seen Mr Volante strike Jordan Devlin, Sam Corner turns away, and when he turns back, through blurred eyes, he sees a similar looking figure in black grappling with Jordan Devlin. Did he think it was still Mr Volante? Possibly. As Sam said in evidence, he didn’t remember this even shortly afterwards, and without any real visual memory it would be difficult to piece together what had happened. He has tried his best to help you based on what he can see on the footage but he cannot help you with the detail of what was going through his mind at the time. He very genuinely cannot remember it clearly and does not want to guess. Three important points arise from this:

1. It demonstrates that the prosecution’s assertion, that he didn’t mention certain things in his interview because he has made them up since, is nonsense. If Mr Corner wanted to make up an account, to lie to you, he could have said he remembered things clearly even when he didn’t. He could have said this is what he thought and this is what he intended and I remember it all. But he has rigidly stuck to the truth, the unvarnished, honest truth. The events of that night were confusing and unclear at the time, in interview and now;
2. Certainly don’t hold it against him. He is being asked to describe a fast moving scene from nearly two years ago, where it is difficult to remember exactly what was in his mind at the time, what he was aware of and thought then as opposed to what he knows and thinks now having seen the video footage, having been held in prison for 20 months. For someone who feels compelled to be accurate to the point of pedantry, if he cannot remember he isn’t going to guess. He will tell you he cannot remember;
3. The fact that he can’t remember doesn’t mean that you revert to the prosecution version of events. It doesn’t make their account any more true. The burden and standard of proof still falls on them to make you sure, and you decide the case on all the evidence.

So what can you see from the footage? What inferences can you draw?

Well first of all, keep an eye on the real time. For quite some time you can see that PC Buxton is on top of Mr Devlin. You can’t see how he has hold of him or what he is doing or how it may have appeared from the outside. It is a matter of a few seconds in which Sam Corner intervenes. A matter of seconds in which he has to react.

Second, despite the prosecution saying that this was an unprovoked assault, there is no count on the Indictment alleging an assault on PC Buxton, and you may decide that weakens the prosecution’s stance.

Third, what is the evidence of injury. A single contact, causing a slight, faint bruise to his leg. Despite the prosecution case being that Sam Corner was on a rampage at this point, that is the extent of what he does.

So what do we draw from that incident. Well,

– Whether he may have begun his action while PC Buxton still had hold of Jordan and pulled his punch thereafter, perhaps slowing the swing after Jordan Devlin got up, thereby explaining the lack of real injury;

– Whether he may have believed that this was the same person who had struck Jordan once and was part of the group who were now escalating matters, using unnecessary and unreasonable force;

– Whether he feared that this person would get up and continue his attack;

His actions with PC Buxton would still be in the realms of self-defence or defence of another. But most importantly throughout this incident, even when unexpected circumstances caused him to react to something that he did not foresee, anticipate or expect, his instinctive response is reasonable and proportionate to the danger as he perceived it to be. That response is not consistent with the prosecution case.

You can certainly infer (or certainly cannot reasonably exclude the likelihood) that what he is doing is to protect or try to protect Jordan. The same thing he was trying to do just a few seconds later.

—

It is against all that cumulative background that you come to the incident with PS Evans. Let me make it very clear that neither I nor Sam Corner suggest for a moment that PS Evans did anything wrong. Quite the contrary. She was doing her duty, and commendably so. Her actions, particularly in the aftermath, checking on the welfare of others including Sam himself are a testament to her character and professionalism. There was no challenge from me to any of her evidence. No questions at all. So far as I was concerned there was no reason she had to come to court to give evidence because there is no dispute about what actually happened.

Because it is not a matter of what was actually happening, but what Sam Corner believed or may have believed was happening.

You don’t view that in isolation:

• You keep in your mind that Sam’s vision is still impaired (you can see that he is still keeping his eyes closed, trying to rub them afterwards while he is being detained by PC Buxton);
• You keep in mind the sirens, the shouting, the noise, the smell; He told you, everything about the environment was overwhelming;
• You keep in mind that he has just seen a member of security strike a fellow protestor and seemingly then struggling with them on the floor. He told you he felt scared for the others at this time because he could hear and see them being assaulted;
• You keep in mind that his reactions throughout that night have not been over the top.

You then add in Leona Kamio’s screams. You can hear them yourself of course on the BWV in the cold and clinical light of the courtroom, but imagine them happening live, nearby and with everything else going on. Even PC Buxton described them as horrible screams, something that had stuck with him even two days later when he was talking about what had happened on video. You may think it is unlikely that Sam Corner had ever heard someone screaming in pain like that before.

The prosecution case is that these were all faked, this was acting by Leona Kamio, and not just that, but also that Sam Corner knew this was fake. But that only works if this was planned in advance, and despite the fact that no-one else is following this plan, despite the fact that there is no mention of it anywhere and despite the fact that afterward Leona Kamio is completely unaware of what has happened and doesn’t believe the officer when he tells her what has happened. Despite all of that, the prosecution persist in trying to satisfy you of both of those things in order to try and convince you that Sam Corner wasn’t acting in defence of another.

You look at that footage and come to your own decision about whether this is faked. You ask yourself, even if we were to think the reaction was over the top, how was Sam to know that? And you ask yourselves what does this do for the prosecution’s credibility, what does it say about their case, that it relies on such implausibilities. 

Sam Corner undoubtedly honestly believed in that moment, that one of the women was being seriously injured. You may think that was a reasonable and understandable conclusion to reach in the circumstances but whether or not that was a reasonable conclusion again doesn’t matter. It is his honest perception of the events which matters.

Now Sam Corner certainly accepts that his perception of events was wrong, that he made a terrible mistake and PS Evans was not hurting anybody. But sadly that is certainly not the perception that Sam had at the time. Whether he thought it was Ms Rajwani or Ms Kamio at the time makes no difference, possibly he transposed them in his recollection, but if he was making up an account to you he would just have said he thought it was Leona Kamio.

At the time, as he told you, what he saw was consistent with a security guard attacking a small woman and causing her serious injury. He wouldn’t have gone over there otherwise. He wouldn’t have done what he did otherwise. It is the only reason why someone with no previous convictions or history of violence, who abhors violence, would take such action. And it explains why after he did what he thought was necessary and proportionate to stop the threat, he stopped. He doesn’t keep swinging, he doesn’t follow it up with kicks or punches to PS Evans or any other officer.

He was protecting her.

Whether or not you accept that Mr Corner thought it was a security officer, may not make a great deal of difference. He clearly thought that the degree of force being used was unnecessary and disproportionate and therefore unlawful. He couldn’t see how it was being caused, he could hear it in Ms Kamio’s screams, and he would have been able to tell approximately where those screams were coming from. He genuinely believed Leona or Fatema Zainab was being caused serious injury, there was no other reason why she would be screaming in that way, and no-one suggests that it was necessary for either of them to be caused serious injury for any reason by anyone.

But you may well accept that he didn’t realise this was a police officer, because if he knew this was a police officer, he always knew it would be an end to matters at that stage. He was there as an “overt”, an arrestable. Hands up, on the ground, go floppy. Passively resist, not actively attack. Jumping ahead slightly, his actions after he is arrested do not show someone trying to continue causing damage, obviously that’s over now. They show someone in pain – from the PAVA, from the chokehold and the handcuffs – and trying to make it stop.

One swing that makes contact. It’s the second swing which tells you what he was trying to achieve. Not making contact but coming down in the area where the officer had hold of Ms Kamio while she was screaming moments before. Where whatever mechanism was being used to caused injury, whatever it was he was trying to stop was taking place.

Of course you have to determine whether the degree of force used was or may have been reasonable. Again, you decide this on the circumstances as Sam Corner believed them to be. The greater the degree of force that someone believes is being used or the more serious the injury someone believes is being caused or threatened, the greater the degree of force that is allowed in response.

But although the law defines it in these strict linear steps and definitions, as set out in your Route To Verdict, the brain doesn’t work that way. You have to respond quickly, with the tools available to hand. As His Lordship directed you:

‘If you decide that what the defendant did was, in the heat of the moment when fine judgments are difficult, no more than the defendant genuinely believed was necessary, then that would be strong evidence that the force used was reasonable.’

That is exactly what Mr Corner did. As he said, “I had to act quickly and what I did appeared reasonable based on what I thought was happening”. And may he have thought that based on that perception if he hesitated it may be too late and he had to do something rather than nothing.

The Route To Verdict directs you to consider defence of another first, before determining whether Mr Corner intended to cause Grievous Bodily Harm or Actual Bodily Harm. But although it is a slightly different question, you will need to consider what level of force Sam Corner intended to use at the first stage, because that is the measure by which you judge whether his response was or may have been reasonable. And in making that assessment, you may want to consider the following:

1. I suggest you cannot be sure that he was aiming for her spine. You have heard and may have some experience yourself that sledgehammers are not easy to control. It’s not clear he has a good grip and a solid stance on that first attempt. You can see that it is the side of the sledgehammer appears to make contact with PS Evans’ back. The photograph of the bruise in evidence is consistent with that. That may suggest he doesn’t have control, that may suggest he wasn’t trying to hit as hard as he could;
2. I suggest you cannot be sure that he gave any thought to the level of force used. It may not have occurred to him and if it did he may have misjudged it in the heat of the moment;
3. I suggest that you cannot be sure that it crossed his mind that there was a risk of injuring bone as opposed to simply causing a bruise. That wouldn’t have been unreasonable possibility, as we know that is what happened to PC Buxton;
4. The medical evidence set out in your Agreed Facts is perhaps helpful. The literature is split, some suggesting such injuries can be caused with high energy, some suggesting that it can be caused with lower energy. Such injuries can be caused in motor vehicle accidents but also in falls (no information about what type of accidents or falls we’re talking about). But is does tell you the level of force used would be moderate to severe – and I suggest that the burden and standard of proof mean that you should decide that in the defendant’s favour and conclude that the force was moderate and that’s what you’re looking at. Force. The Agreed Facts tell you that high energy would be required, but that’s not the same as force. You may need a lot of energy to create a moderate force, depending on the mechanism. You don’t know how much of that force was being added by gravity or momentum.
5. And finally take into account all you know about Sam Corner. He told you and you may agree from everything you have heard, he would never think to do that to someone.

The prosecution case hinges on this being a deliberate blow to the spine, intending to damage a person’s spine, possibly even intending to paralyse someone. Is that really what you think Sam Corner intended to happen, knowing everything you know about him? Or was he doing just what was reasonable in order to protect another, in the circumstances as he believed them to be, as he said moments later.

Everything you see is consistent with what Sam Corner has told you. It is not consistent with the prosecution case.

Because what he did is what he said seconds later. “I was protecting her”. The fact that it wasn’t repeated in interview is utterly irrelevant. The fact that it is set out in the legal directions that you may conclude that he has made that account up since his interview, shows how adverse inferences from silence are at best meaningless but at worst, if wrongly applied, dangerous. The fact that the prosecution ask you to draw such a nonsensical conclusion smacks of clutching at straws and a complete lack of judgment.

Imagine yourself again in Sam Corner’s position, arrested for the first time, arrested for terrorism, held incommunicado, still trying to process what has happened. Of course he is going to follow his solicitor’s advice. The fact that he was acting in defence of another, that he did not intend to cause really serious harm and that he was overwhelmed and panicked and unable to remember is all there in the evidence anyway.

Drawing all of that together and applying the legal directions you have to the evidence you’ve seen and heard leads you to the conclusion that his actions were or may have been in the lawful defence of another and to a verdict of Not Guilty on Count 2.

—

If you don’t agree, if you are sure this wasn’t defence of another, you still take all those points I have mentioned into account when determining whether Sam Corner intended to cause GBH. The answer I suggest must be no. Sam Corner told you “I would never want to seriously hurt anyone”. The reality is it did not cross his mind, and if he did not think about it, he did not formulate any intention. It doesn’t matter if he should have thought about it, it doesn’t matter if you think the likelihood of such harm was obvious, it wouldn’t even matter if he had foreseen a risk of really serious harm.

For GBH with Intent, or Attempted GBH, he has to have intended to cause really serious harm, and that simply isn’t the case. He didn’t plan to do it beforehand, he didn’t intend to do it at the time, he didn’t realise what had happened for quite some time afterwards.

You also have to consider another aspect of this count and the various alternatives, which is whether in fact this was in fact grievous bodily harm. Really serious harm to give it it’s modern terminology.

There is no legal definition beyond that. There is no list of injuries which fall into this category. It is a matter for you to decide.

Nothing I say is intended to diminish or downplay this injury. The problem is that ‘really serious’ is not a medical term or a precise legal term. Where this may fall is in the category of serious, but not really serious. Certainly actual bodily harm, but falling short of grievous bodily harm. Entirely a matter for you, but I ask you to bear in mind the following:

• Although the bottom of the scale for really serious harm is unclear, the top of the range is anything short of death. Really serious harm covers loss of limbs, someone being in a coma, loss of sight, major organ damage, permanent disability. It does not do a disservice to PS Evans to say that this injury is not in the same category;
• The words used by the prosecution, both to open and close this case, was that this was a fracture to the spine. The choice of words is deliberate. You would very quickly, and deliberately, have been put in mind of a break snapping the spinal column in two, the thick lumbar vertebrae in two from left to right. But that is why you now have the photographs of the CT scan in your agreed facts. So you can see that it was in fact the edge of what we now know to be called the transverse process in medical terms, the little sticky out bit in non-medical terms;
• This was an injury that was not obvious. The doctor viewing the X-ray initially did not identify any bony injury. That was only identified on review some days later by a specialist radiologist. A later MRI scan showed no visible bony injury. The point here being that it wasn’t clear and obvious;
• This was not an injury which required surgery. PS Evans was advised to take pain relief if necessary and engaged in physiotherapy. The prognosis of the specialists after reviewing all the medical evidence, as set out in the Agreed Facts, is that you would expect such a fracture to heal in 6 to 12 weeks, with full healing in 3 to 6 months – and no long-term consequences.

It’s entirely up to you to determine, so that you are sure, in all the circumstances, where it falls within the range of harm. What is clear is that it is not a matter Sam Corner can agree or disagree with. He was cross-examined about whether he thinks it is really serious harm or not, and he was criticised for saying “I can’t answer that question”. But how can he answer that. It is a matter for you to decide. That is the reality and the accurate legal position. It may be an issue on which different people may come to different views. In fact, even if the prosecution and defence agreed the position, it would still be up to you to decide, and you would be entitled to disagree. For someone who takes things very literally and is concerned to be precise in his answers, that simply isn’t a question Sam Corner can answer. This was – I regret to say – a cheap trick, designed to either force him to agree with the prosecution or to make him look bad in your eyes for simply maintaining the true legal position.

His position is honestly and fairly put. He did not intend to cause that level of injury. So even if, contrary to everything I’ve set out, you conclude that this is really serious harm, I am confident you will not hold it against him for seeking to uphold your autonomy, your role, for putting that decision in your hands.

 

Because he trusts you to make that decision. To analyse the evidence carefully and fairly. To apply your common sense and judgment. To apply that to all the evidence – you decide whether this was really serious harm, whether his response was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be, all of the issue

It is for issues like that that we have juries.

As Ms Head mentioned, there are proposals to cut juries out of Crown Court trials, to have guilt or innocence determined by Judges instead. But you will be hard pressed to find any criminal barrister, prosecution or defence, who supports that proposal. And I sincerely hope that, at the end of your time as jurors, your experience of the jury system will be a positive one, you will share our appreciation of the irreplaceable value that you bring and you will oppose the right to trial by jury being removed.

It is the only just and fair system for deciding guilt or innocence. That decision, that power should not be in the hands of one individual, who may not be properly representative of our society, who may have a singular viewpoint and narrow experience, who may bring with them conscious and unconscious bias and prejudice. Such decisions should be made by the community with your collective experience, common sense and integrity. Juries can and often do spot things that lawyers and judges have overlooked. Juries can and should be fearless and forensic. These are just some of the many reasons why our system is the envy of the world.

So perhaps the real question is, why do those in power want to take away the right to trial by jury? The reason maybe that even more so than the right to vote, the jury system gives power to the people, and power is not always given up easily. Establishing, embedding and defending the right to trial by jury that we now enjoy, the right to free and independent judgment by a panel of your peers, has been a long hard fight.

800 years ago, the Barons forced King John to agree to the right to trial by jury being in Magna Carta under threat of civil war.

400 years ago the monarchy had fought back and there was the Star Chamber, presided over by the King and his ministers. One historian later said of that period that:

‘…there scarcely occurs an instance, during all these reigns, that the sovereign, or the ministers, were ever disappointed in the issue of a prosecution. Timid juries… never failed to second all the views of the crown… it is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject.’

That most hated and unfair court was, thankfully, abolished following the Civil War. Even 100 years ago, into the 20th century, there was indirect control perhaps, exercised by limiting who sat on a jury. Those who made the laws wanted to make sure that people who sat on juries looked and thought like them. Women weren’t allowed onto juries until 1919, and, until just over 50 years ago in 1971, jurors had to either be a property owner or a householder in a property worth a certain amount.

All of this is important, understanding that history is important. The role of the jury is not a rubber stamp. The role of the jury is quite the opposite. It is a protection against tyranny. It is a vital bulwark between the might of the state and the liberty of the individual. It is one of our essential checks and balances on which the legitimacy of the criminal justice system rests.

The prosecution, the State, must make you sure that these defendants are guilty. If they’ve done that, what you find proved and what you don’t, are all matters for you and only you to decide. You, and only you, are the people to whom the verdict is entrusted, no-one can tell you what you must do. No-one can ask you for the reasons behind your decision and as His Lordship directed you at the start of the trial it would in fact be a criminal offence for anyone to disclose what is discussed between the twelve of you in the sanctity of the jury room.

Those principles, that hard-fought independence, that solemn responsibility now falls to you to uphold and protect in accordance with your oath. Sam Corner and I trust that you will do that, and have faith that in doing so you will reach the right, proper and true verdicts in this case.

---

 

And finally, here is the powerful closing defence statement delivered by Ms Zoe Rogers:

As you’ve probably noticed, I decided to represent myself in this trial. Not because my barrister was doing a bad job or anything – we’ve actually become close friends – and I’m constantly telling the others I have the best barrister. I am so grateful for everything she has done for me, in this trial and the last. But this time I wanted to be able to speak to you myself. 

During this trial you’ve heard some very important evidence. You’ve heard that there are factories on British soil making weapons to send to Israel. You’ve heard that the drones they make include Thor VTOL Quadcopters used to drop grenades, drones that are advertised as ‘battle tested’ on Palestinians. You’ve heard that drones use AI to target children, and that Magni X surveillance drones work in tandem with ‘killer drones’, and that Research & Development carried out in the UK is vital to the Israeli military. You’ve also heard that the Filton site was opened by the Israeli Ambassador, that it has export licences to Israel, that Elbit itself is the ‘backbone’ of the Israeli military.

You heard how we tried every democratic means available to us, including demonstrations, fundraisers, encampments, petitions, writing to MPs, stickers leading to Amnesty International information about the apartheid, vigils, arms factory pickets, the list goes on. And how none of it worked. You heard how direct action is effective, how it ended apartheid during the civil rights movement in America, how it is being used in the UK today to shut down weapons factories, 4 of which have been closed permanently.

You’ve heard that after we destroyed these drones we were arrested for terrorism – were held incommunicado – spent 18 months in prison without trial. You’ve heard that this is a retrial.

After hearing the 6 of us give evidence you might think it odd that what’s happening in Palestine has gone completely unmentioned, you might have noticed certain words that have been blacklisted, that until our closing speeches the word genocide wasn’t said once. There have been interruptions from the prosecution, quick subject changes from our barristers – it’s almost as if whole topics of conversation have been banned. The prosecution know full well that we are right that this factory is supplying weapons to Israel to be used in Gaza. That is why they are choosing to suppress it rather than contest it. The prosecution have decided that the legality of Israel’s actions is irrelevant in this trial. Because they know you could not in good conscience find us guilty of anything if you were allowed to hear the whole truth. 

To find us guilty of criminal damage you have to be sure. You might recognise the term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, it’s the same thing. And I’m going to use an analogy to explain this, because unlike this lot, I don’t have a legal degree. 

Let’s imagine that you and someone you love have gone on holiday together. And one day you decide to go parachuting. Now, you’d want to be sure that this parachute is going to catch you. You wouldn’t just buy a cheap one off of Amazon, wouldn’t borrow one off a friend that had been rotting in their shed for a while. Because you’d want to know everything about this parachute! Its history, who had made it, how it had been used, maybe even its motivations? Because you’d want to know that as you’re plummeting towards the ground, when you set off that mechanism that parachute is going to catch you, because if you’re not sure, well, that’s a pretty permanent mistake. And this decision is no different. It is just as permanent, with life-changing consequences, and most importantly, you cannot take it back. 

The prosecution have to make you sure, for you to be able to convict. But how can you be sure when you know you haven’t heard the whole truth? 

Now I’m an ordinary person, with friends, family, a place at university, a cat I love, basically a whole lot to lose by going to prison. But you know that we all actually intended to be arrested on the 6th of August. We intended to go to trial. And I won’t speak for the others here, but the reason I was willing and confident enough to allow that, was because I knew that now, 20 months in the future, I would be standing in front of 12 ordinary people like you. Not politicians, not legal experts, not barristers and judges wearing 400 yr old horsehair on their heads, but a panel of my equals. You are the best counterweight to power and tyranny within the legal system as it exists today. It is a privilege to be judged by you. And I don’t say that to flatter you, but because as you’ve already heard, the right to trial by jury is under threat, with a Bill passing through the House of Commons as I speak. Juries as we know them today may not be around for much longer, precisely because your pockets cannot be weighed down by bribes from the rich and powerful. (And also because juries often refuse to convict in these kinds of cases). And that is a very powerful position for you to be in. 

No one can tell you to convict in this case, not even the judge. In fact, the judge is explicitly not allowed to tell you to convict! You, and only you, can decide on your verdicts. But not only can you acquit us, but you have the RIGHT to acquit us. No one can punish you for your decision. No one can even ask you why. 

I want you to know however, that whatever you decide, I will not hold it against you. How can I when you have been kept so in the dark. But you can be sure of one thing. I am proud, I am so proud that I took part in this. I am proud that I overcame my fear and took action, because of course I was scared, you don’t just break into an Israeli weapons factory for fun! And I can say with absolute certainty that this is the best thing I have ever done, because there is a good chance that because of our actions that night, innocent lives were saved. 

And so I will never be ashamed that I was on trial, that I have spent 18 months in prison, that I may face many more.  

You know that we have been treated as terrorists throughout this process. A domestic violence worker, two nursery school teachers, one Oxford graduate, an artist and me. It sounds dystopian, but it’s true, just like the proscription of Palestine Action.

But this time you are the decision makers. Unlike what the prosecution and the government want you to be, you are not a rubber stamp. Don’t fall into their trap.

Find the six of us Not Guilty of criminal damage.