Activists criminalised for trying to prevent war crimes issue comment before sentencing hearing on Wednesday
Four activists found guilty of planning to damage an Israeli weapons factory in the West Midlands, who were prevented during the trial from raising the political aspects of their actions to prevent war crimes against Palestinian civilians, have issued a statement ahead of the sentencing hearing in Wolverhampton on Wednesday morning. Four of the group, known as the ‘Elbit 5’, were convicted – the jury was not informed by the judge that they have the right to reach a not-guilty verdict based on conscience and the charges being unjust, regardless of law.
The statement reads:
On Wednesday September 6 We Will Be Sentenced for the ‘crime’ of trying to prevent Elbit committing war crimes
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)
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.