0:00
0:00
Pro-Palestine Activists Cleared of Burglary Charges Over Break-In at UK Israeli Arms Facility
A British jury acquits campaigners accused of entering a defence manufacturing site linked to Israel, accepting their argument that the action was intended to prevent alleged wrongdoing.
A group of pro-Palestine activists have been acquitted of burglary after being charged over a break-in at a defence manufacturing site in the United Kingdom connected to Israeli arms production.
The defendants had been accused of entering the premises and causing damage during a protest action targeting the facility, which they alleged was supplying equipment used in the conflict in Gaza.
Prosecutors argued that the activists unlawfully entered the site with intent to cause damage, constituting burglary under UK law.
Following a trial at a Crown Court in England, the jury returned not-guilty verdicts, accepting the defence case that the activists believed their actions were justified in order to prevent what they described as greater harm.
Defence lawyers told the court that the group acted out of conscience and sought to disrupt the alleged supply chain of military components destined for Israel.
The case centred on whether the defendants had a lawful excuse for entering the property and whether their actions met the legal threshold for burglary.
The jury’s decision effectively concluded that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Outside court, supporters welcomed the verdict as a vindication of protest rights.
Representatives of the company involved have previously maintained that it operates fully within UK export control laws and complies with all regulatory requirements governing defence manufacturing.
The acquittal comes amid heightened scrutiny of UK-based firms with commercial links to Israel’s defence sector, as well as intensified activism related to the ongoing Middle East conflict.
Legal experts say the case underscores the complex intersection between criminal law, protest activity and claims of moral or political justification.
While the verdict resolves the criminal proceedings against the individuals involved, it is likely to fuel further debate over the boundaries of direct action and the responsibilities of companies operating within the global defence supply chain.
The defendants had been accused of entering the premises and causing damage during a protest action targeting the facility, which they alleged was supplying equipment used in the conflict in Gaza.
Prosecutors argued that the activists unlawfully entered the site with intent to cause damage, constituting burglary under UK law.
Following a trial at a Crown Court in England, the jury returned not-guilty verdicts, accepting the defence case that the activists believed their actions were justified in order to prevent what they described as greater harm.
Defence lawyers told the court that the group acted out of conscience and sought to disrupt the alleged supply chain of military components destined for Israel.
The case centred on whether the defendants had a lawful excuse for entering the property and whether their actions met the legal threshold for burglary.
The jury’s decision effectively concluded that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Outside court, supporters welcomed the verdict as a vindication of protest rights.
Representatives of the company involved have previously maintained that it operates fully within UK export control laws and complies with all regulatory requirements governing defence manufacturing.
The acquittal comes amid heightened scrutiny of UK-based firms with commercial links to Israel’s defence sector, as well as intensified activism related to the ongoing Middle East conflict.
Legal experts say the case underscores the complex intersection between criminal law, protest activity and claims of moral or political justification.
While the verdict resolves the criminal proceedings against the individuals involved, it is likely to fuel further debate over the boundaries of direct action and the responsibilities of companies operating within the global defence supply chain.
