Elbit factory targeted in Palestine Action raid was set to deliver 'immediate shipment of drones' to Israel, court hears

The case concerns a break-in at an Elbit Systems factory in Filton, near Bristol, on 6 August 2024. Prosecutors say the defendants helped create a diversion so another group could enter the site. The raid matters because the factory was allegedly preparing to send drones to Israel around that time.

The prosecution calls the five defendants the “black team”. It alleges they wore black jumpsuits, used fireworks, and carried items including whips, hammers and kebab skewers. A “red team” allegedly arrived in a prison van, rammed the loading-bay shutters and smashed weapons and equipment. The defendants say the tools were for the action, not attacking people.

All five defendants deny criminal damage and violent disorder. The evidence includes testimony from Qesser Zuhrah, who said she helped coordinate the action. The trial will test whether the defendants caused unlawful damage or used, or threatened, violence as prosecutors allege.

Elbit Systems is described as an Israeli-owned arms company with a factory in Filton, near Bristol. The article presents the site as part of a wider weapons-supply network connected to Israel. This matters because activists believed equipment at the site could support Israel’s military operations.

The clearest product mentioned is drones. Qesser Zuhrah told the court she believed Elbit supplied drones found at its factories and that an immediate shipment was due to leave the Filton site. Prosecutors also allege that activists smashed weapons and other equipment inside the factory. The article does not identify the drone models or give a full production list.

The current court evidence therefore establishes the site’s alleged connection to drones, weapons and equipment, not its complete industrial output. Zuhrah also claimed Elbit supplied 85 percent of Israel’s land-based weaponry, but that was her belief presented in evidence, not an independently established figure in the article.

Five defendants are charged: Qesser Zuhrah, Zahra Farooque, Kamran Ahmed, Heba Muraisi and Liam Mullany. Prosecutors call them the “black team”. They allege this group aimed to overwhelm security and create the conditions for another group to enter the factory.

The alleged black-team tactics included black jumpsuits, fireworks, smoke, whips, hammers and large kebab skewers. The “red team” allegedly used a prison van to ram the loading-bay shutters. Prosecutors say the red team then smashed weapons and other equipment inside. Zuhrah described the black team’s purpose differently: creating smoke and noise, helping the van enter, and leaving quickly.

The trial will determine whether those alleged roles amount to criminal offences. The prosecution says intimidation or violence could be used if necessary. Zuhrah told jurors the plan involved no violence or threat of violence, and all five defendants deny the charges.

The activists considered the shipment important because they believed drones leaving the factory could support Israel’s military operations. Qesser Zuhrah told the court that the group had heard about an “immediate shipment of weapons” and speedtracked the action as a result.

Zuhrah said she believed Elbit supplied drones found at its factories and that the drones were likely to be used in Gaza. She also told jurors she believed Elbit said its weapons were “battle-tested” on Palestinians. Her evidence described the action as an attempt to stop weapons from leaving, rather than simply damage property.

The article does not independently confirm the shipment’s contents, destination or later use. It reports that the factory was scheduled to deliver a shipment of drones to Israel around the time of the raid. Whether that belief justified the defendants’ actions is part of the wider legal and factual dispute at trial.

Under English law, criminal damage generally means intentionally or recklessly damaging property belonging to another person without a lawful excuse. Prosecutors must show that the defendant caused the damage, acted intentionally or recklessly, and lacked a recognised lawful excuse. The prosecution must prove those elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Violent disorder is a public-order offence involving three or more people using or threatening unlawful violence. The conduct must be such that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for personal safety. Prosecutors must prove the defendant participated in that conduct and had the required awareness or intention under the offence.

Applied here, the prosecution would need to connect each defendant to the alleged damage or disorder. It would also need to overcome any defence based on lack of involvement, lack of required intent, or lawful excuse. The article reports that the defendants deny the charges and that Zuhrah denies any plan for violence.

The immediate consequence of the trial is personal. If convicted, the five defendants could receive criminal penalties, with the outcome depending on the offences proved and the court’s sentencing decision. If acquitted, they would avoid conviction on these charges. The article does not state the possible sentence or predict the verdict.

The case could also shape public debate about direct action against arms companies. Evidence about the alleged shipment, the factory’s equipment and the activists’ stated aims may affect how supporters and critics understand such raids. A conviction could strengthen arguments that the action was unlawful; an acquittal could encourage claims that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

Any wider effect on Palestine Action’s campaign remains uncertain. The article does not report a ruling about the organisation itself, nor does it describe future planned actions. Its clearest consequence so far is that five people are being tried over one high-profile factory raid.

Military drones are unmanned aircraft used by armed forces. Depending on their design, they can watch areas, gather intelligence, identify targets, carry equipment or launch attacks. They allow operations without placing a pilot inside the aircraft. The article itself only identifies drones as equipment linked to the factory.

In an armed conflict, drones can help a force monitor movements and terrain, support targeting and conduct strikes. Their supply therefore matters because access to aircraft, replacement parts, software and maintenance can affect how often and how effectively a force carries out those tasks. Removing one shipment could disrupt, delay or reduce available capability, but the size of any effect depends on wider supplies.

The activists believed an immediate drone shipment from Filton was bound for Israel and might be used in Gaza. The article does not confirm the drones’ exact type, function or later use. Those limits prevent a more specific assessment of their military impact.