Juries have the right to act according to their conscience
In March 2021, police intercepted a team of Palestine Actionists on their way to Shenstone in Staffordshire where they intended to halt production at a factory owned by Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest arms company.
In May this year, after more than two years delay, they were found guilty of “intent to commit criminal damage”. Now they face possible jail terms. The Elbit 5 statement reproduced below explains the important ramifications of their case. It can also be viewed as a pdf here.
In an atmosphere of general threat toward civil liberties and the right to protest, the handling by the courts of Palestine Action cases deserves careful study.
Last month a judge found two activists not guilty of ‘obstruction of the highway’ after they were involved in blocking access to Elbit-owned UAV Engines Ltd. Both defendants gave evidence of crimes committed against the Palestinian people by the targeted arms factory. They were acquitted on the basis that their action was proportionate in comparison to the crimes against humanity which they were acting to stop.
In the Shenstone case however, the defendants have been denied the right to explain their reasons for targeting Elbit or the background to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Jury members were not told that they have the right to reach a verdict according to their conscience.
On Wednesday September 6 we will be sentenced for the‘ crime’ of trying to prevent Elbit committing war crimes
PRESS RELEASE
Monday September 4 2023
Statement from the Elbit 5
On Wednesday 6 September four of us will be sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court for the ‘crime’ of trying to prevent Elbit, Israel’s largest arms company, from producing engines for drones which are used against Palestinian civilians. The legal pretext is ‘intent to commit criminal damage’.
On March 9 2021 we were arrested by the Police before we could reach Elbit’s Shenstone factory where some of us intended to halt the production. On May 15 2023, after a 7 week trial, we were found guilty.
Judge Michael Chambers refused to admit all lawful excuse defences under s.3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 [CDA] or let us explain why it was that we had targeted Elbit and the background to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The jury was not told that they have the right to reach a verdict based on whether it is unjust to convict and whether or not the use of the CDA in this case was oppressive. It has long been established case law since Bushell’s case in 1670, that a jury has the right to reach a verdict according to their conscience.
Patrick Devlin, a former Law Lord said that the right to bring in ‘perverse acquittals’ gives protection against laws which the ordinary man regards as harsh and oppressive . . . an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man’s ideas of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement.
Israel’s recent attack on Jenin used drones built by Elbit. 12 Palestinians, including 4 children, were killed. It is this kind of atrocity in occupied Palestine that motivated our action. The defence of necessity whereby it is permissible to commit a smaller crime in order to prevent a far greater crime was ruled out. The courts have decided that the victims of Elbit’s drones are too ‘remote’ from Elbit’s UK factories.
The ‘logic’ of the Crown was that in order to use this defence we had to identify the particular engine in the drone that killed a specific child. We believe that these are legal semantics designed to enable further Elbit war crimes. It enables Elbit to evade legislation on preventing war crimes such as when an Elbit drone extrajudicially assassinated three Palestinians in Jenin on 21 June 2023. Defences under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to protest), as per Ziegler, were also ruled out.
Section 52/53 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 make the commission of war crimes by British nationals or residents, or being ancillary to war crimes, be they in this country or abroad, an offence. It is obvious that actions intended to prevent the production of Elbit Drones must be lawful. In the eyes of the law, criminal damage against Elbit factories is more serious than enabling war crimes.
Delays
HHJ Chambers has stated that our offences ‘cross the custody threshold’. The date of sentencing was originally intended to be on June 26. It has been repeatedly postponed. This continual delay in sentence is in itself a form of punishment. One of us has lost his job due to the conviction. This case has been hanging over us for more than
two years.
In taking action against Elbit’s factories we have been guilty of nothing more than trying to prevent Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people. If that is a crime so be it.
We have therefore decided to issue this statement in order that people who have been following the trials and prosecution, some would say persecution, of Palestine Action activists, are made aware of what is happening in this case.
Tony Greenstein
Jeremy Parker
Ibrahim Samadi
Alex Waters
Helen Caney (not convicted)
“Judge Michael Chambers refused to admit all lawful excuse defences under s.3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 [CDA] or let us explain why it was that we had targeted Elbit and the background to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.”
No statement allowed by the defendants, no conviction.
That is how jurors should react.
Solidarity with all of them. Hopefully there will be a mass demo outside the court so the jurors see the mood of them. Wish I could be there.
Judges should not be allowed to withhold evidence from a jury, which is in effect what they are doing if they do not allow the accused to address the jury in their own defence. At the very least, there should be a retrial where all the evidence can be heard.
In addition, judges who attempt to rig a verdict by abusing their powers and the rights of a defendant, should be heavily sanctioned.
no need to worry: Kier Starmer will spring to your defence
We are gradually heading towards being a police state, edging there in ‘bite sized chunks’, so slowly that it’s hardly noticed by the general population who, if allowed to hear about the cowardly violence perpetrated on the people of Palestine, aided by products made in our so-called respectable country, would be up in arms. That a judge should – possibly for biased reasons – not allow justification to be sited for the defendants’ intentions is beyond scandalous and very worrying.
Brave comrades !
And such an effective protest action, well executed !
Solidarity Elbit 5.
You are brave to take these actions on behalf of many of us.
Environmental activists and others are helping defend the rights of jurors to support your actions. May justice prevail.
It should be noted that the criminality of Elbit Systems extends well beyond its complicity in war crimes against the Palestinian people. According to Ha’aretz (5/9/2023):
“Israel continued to sell advanced weapons systems to Myanmar’s armed forces until at least early 2022, a year after the rise of its junta regime. According to documents and sources who spoke with Haaretz, the government-owned Israel Aerospace Industries and the Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems maintained their trade with Myanmar despite an international arms embargo on the country, and despite a 2017 ruling by Israel’s High Court of Justice and the Israeli government’s own 2018 statement saying it stopped such sales.”
Please consider supporting
http://www.defendourjuries.org
The only person I know on this list is Tony, and I have just sent good wishes to him. I am sure it is really scary to be facing prison, especially in light of some of the vicious sentences handed out to defendants in ‘civil disobedience’ cases. If things do turn out badly – or even if they don’t – I reckon some emailing/letters of support would be welcomed. Is there any way of doing this – either to their emails, or via the Prison service?
British Justice is not what we are led to believe.
I have shared this story on under the heading Shameful Conviction of Activists Trying to Prevent War Crimes.
After the injustice of being denied the right to – effectively – speak in their defence it seems (according to Skwawkie) that they received a suspended
sentence plus Community service orders .. for “damage” which they did not commit ..
Judge Chambers: – ‘ … public attitudes have hardened towards tolerance for extreme actions or minorities choosing disruption of criminal damage rather than using the main routes that are open to protest in democratic society.’
‘ … main routes … in democratic society.’ – What? Write to your MP? Letter to the Guardian?
It seems no time at all since ‘the public’ seemed happy to condemn the judges as ‘Enemies of the People’.
Utmost respect for the five activists. The British Law taking another dive towards a police state, any protest is going to be a criminal offence with no rights of appeal, ‘you’re guilty’!!
20 years ago, the MSM would have had headline news for a week or until the Government changed the Law, now it supports the Government in every new Law that’s against our Human Rights.
Yes I think Margaret West and Skwawkbox are correct that the defendants got community sentences for non-harm, but on basis of damage which might have happened if they had managed to carry out their intentions.
Is our judicial system being managed in the fervid imagination of the mind of Franz Kafka?
Good luck to Tony and the others. I am constantly amazed at the diversity of forms and arenas to which Tony’s Scarlett Pimpernel-like activism takes him.
Well done and good luck to Tony and the others !