Five Palestine Action activists dismissed their lawyers today and addressed a jury directly about how they targeted an Israeli weapons factory in Bristol.
The activists – Charlotte Head, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, Leona Kamio, and Jordan Devlin – face charges of criminal damage in connection with a raid on Elbit Systems in August 2024.
On Wednesday morning, shortly before closing speeches were due to be heard at Woolwich Crown Court, those five defendants elected to represent themselves rather than be represented by their barristers.
They said they had not dismissed their barristers over any shortcomings, but because of perceived constraints put on them and their legal representation by the court.
“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”, Head declared.
“Sadly, despite how unbelievably kind and smart and wise my barristers are… I no longer feel like they are permitted to represent me in a way that does us all justice”, she added.
Rajwani added: “I simply wanted to speak to you as an ordinary person. And I wanted to take this time to speak to you as an everyday person”.
Facing the jury, the defendants set out to explain how the genocide in Gaza had impacted them, the importance of jury trials, and, ultimately, why they should be found not guilty.
A sixth defendant, Samuel Corner, who is facing an additional charge of grievous bodily harm with intent, chose to keep his legal representation.
Despair
The defendants spoke freely in court for the first time about the sense of hopelessness and despair that they experienced amid the Gaza genocide.
They also voiced disgust at the UK government’s complicity in Israeli war crimes and the presence of Israeli arms firms on British soil.
Head recalled how she went on local marches and national demonstrations while her “mental health plummeted watching what was happening and feeling helpless to stop it”.
An email to her local MP came back with an “automated response”, she said.
Kamio, who worked at a nursery, spoke about “the conflict of going to work – teaching young children – and going home to watch videos of children losing everything”.
She felt “sick going to bed feeling helpless witnessing massacres” and felt “compelled to act in defence of those children”.
Rajwani described how she “decided to dig the well myself. And what I mean by that was instead of waiting for these weapons to stop, I went straight to the source”.
None of the defendants expressed regret about their actions.
Jordan Devlin declared he does “not regret signing up for this action” despite “being beaten up” by Elbit’s security guards.
“I am so proud I took part in this”, said Zoe Rogers. “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”.
Rogers added: “I can say with absolute certainty that this is the best thing that I have ever done”.
The defendants also emphasised the importance of trial by jury. Devlin remarked that jurors “have the independence to make your minds up about all of the facts you’ve heard”.
Charlotte Head, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers, Leona Kamio, and Jordan Devlin faced charges of criminal damage related to a raid on Elbit Systems in August 2024. These defendants elected to represent themselves rather than their barristers in court. They addressed a jury regarding the impact of the Gaza genocide and the importance of jury trials. The defendants described feelings of hopelessness and despair related to the conflict. They also voiced feelings regarding the UK government's complicity and the presence of Israeli arms firms. Jordan Devlin retained legal representation.
Five Palestine Action activists dismissed their legal representation and addressed a jury regarding their targeting of an Israeli weapons factory in Bristol in August 2024. The defendants cited perceived constraints on their legal representation by the court as the reason for this decision, stating they wanted to speak as ordinary people rather than legal representatives. During their testimony, the defendants discussed the impact of the Gaza genocide on them, the importance of jury trials, and their experiences of hopelessness and despair amid the conflict. They also expressed disgust regarding the UK government's role and the presence of Israeli arms firms on British soil. The defendants articulated feelings of pride and certainty regarding their actions, emphasizing the importance of independent judgment by the jury. A sixth defendant chose to retain legal representation.
The narrative combines specific legal events with intense emotional testimony about personal trauma and political outrage. The framing uses emotionally charged language—such as linking the action to "genocide" and expressing deep personal despair—to establish moral legitimacy for their actions, while simultaneously using legal arguments (importance of jury) to seek a specific outcome. This dual approach creates a powerful tension between the legal process and lived experience. The dismissal of lawyers is framed not as a simple legal choice but as a protest against perceived systemic constraints, shifting the focus from legal strategy to personal voice. The reaction of the defendants, expressing pride in overcoming fear and action, functions as an appeal to moral authority, attempting to establish their actions as necessary and justified beyond the legal charge. This pattern of using personal suffering and moral outrage to contextualize political action often serves to bypass rational legal scrutiny and force an emotional response from the audience. The central dynamic is the attempt to assert cognitive sovereignty over a traumatic experience by translating internal despair into external, justifiable political action, which then requires validation from the judicial system. The cost is the potential for complex emotional narratives to be reduced to simple moral binaries, thereby making systemic complexities harder to process.