In a London court in 1670, it was ruled that no juror could be punished for their refusal to convict, entitling a jury to decide according to its conscience, whatever the bench directed. The legal principle has held for three and a half centuries and, in my 50 years of practice, I have witnessed many juries bring back “sympathy verdicts”, that is, [acquittals](https://novaramedia.com/2025/12/22/why-do-governments-hate-juries-because-they-have-consciences/), because they think a defendant has been oppressively or unfairly prosecuted. But they are not usually reminded by barristers of their right to do so because of the profession’s concern that they should not be urging juries to lay aside the oath they took to decide according to the evidence.

This right sits at the centre of the case of the Elbit four [who last week were sentenced](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/12/palestine-action-activists-sentenced-terrorists-damage-elbit-systems-uk-israel) to more than 22 years combined, for their part in a direct action protest. Leona Kamio, 30, a nursery teacher, Samuel Corner, 23, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, both students, and Charlotte Head, 30, a domestic abuse caseworker, broke into a factory owned by Elbit Systems, an Israeli company that manufactures drones. They are among more than two dozen people – “[the Filton 25](https://goodlawproject.org/palestine-action-our-right-to-protest-is-on-the-line/)” – being tried for breaking into an arms factory in Filton near Bristol, or in connection with the act. They are now in the process of going to court, [spread over four trials](https://filtonactionists.com/court-dates-for-upcoming-filton24-trials/).

The first group of defendants underwent not one, but two trials. At their first, they faced several charges, the gravest being aggravated burglary. Their leading counsel, Rajiv Menon KC, took to the floor to remind the jury of their historical right to acquit, and invited them to weigh the use to which the drones were being put. The judge, Mr Justice Johnson, [referred Menon to the high court](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/05/barrister-palestine-action-trial-facing-contempt-of-court-proceedings) to be tried for the crime of contempt of court for breaching his order not to mention the jury’s right to acquit. The jury, however, went on to [acquit the defendants](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/04/palestine-action-activists-cleared-aggravated-burglary-israeli-defence-firm-elbit-systems-filton) of aggravated burglary. But they could not come to a majority decision on any of the remaining charges.

The prosecution decided that the [defendants must face a retrial](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/18/aggravated-burglary-charges-against-18-palestine-action-activists-dropped). This proceeded with the same Mr Justice Johnson presiding on the charges the first jury could not resolve: criminal damage, an offence ordinarily met with a fine or a sentence of 18 months or so. At this point, the four had already spent more than 18 months in pretrial detention. The second jury convicted the [Elbit four of criminal damage](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p99rxr5po).

One defendant was also convicted of grievous bodily harm without intent, having injured a female police officer with a sledgehammer. He said, and the jury must have accepted that, disoriented by the Pava pepper spray the officer had just deployed, he had [swung the hammer to shield a co-defendant](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/22/palestine-action-activist-who-hit-officer-with-sledge-hammer-panicked-court-told), accidentally hitting the police officer. His sentence nonetheless was seven years and eight months.

How does damaging property earn nearly eight years? At a secret hearing during the first trial, Mr Justice Johnson had ruled that the protest carried [a “terrorist connection”](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Ruling-on-terrorism-connection.pdf). This was unprecedented in the history of direct action trials. His reasoning was that the defendants’ purpose was [to “influence” the British government](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Ruling-on-terrorism-connection.pdf) – which is the purpose of almost every political protest ever mounted. The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the [UK press was barred](https://novaramedia.com/2026/06/05/palestine-action-defendants-apply-to-remove-biased-judge/) from reporting on it.

There was no terrorism in any ordinary sense: no violence meant to kill or maim, only a determination to expose British complicity in the killing of Palestinians. But the [Sentencing Act of 2020](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/contents), passed by the then Conservative government, has significantly widened what counts as terrorism. That fateful act allowed the judge to impose a far heavier sentence. As “terrorists”, they will serve longer times in prison before they are up for parole and [15 years on a list](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/R-v-Charlotte-Head-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf) that makes them police suspects for real terrorism crimes.

The Elbit four will be labelled as “terrorists” because they were convicted, in substance, of a quasi-terrorist offence that was never charged, never put to the jury, and never proven by the prosecution. The jurors who found them guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism. The prosecution was not required to establish the terrorist connection beyond reasonable doubt, or to any standard at all.

You may not sympathise with the Elbit four’s methods. But you should be outraged by their treatment under the law • The jurors who found the pro-Palestine activists guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism