#genocide-complicity — Public Fediverse posts

FILTON TRIAL TWO: THE JURY DID NOT GIVE THE STATE THE CONVICTIONS IT WANTED

One reporting-restricted conviction. Seven named defendants left without guilty verdicts. More than 37 hours of deliberation. A prosecution narrative that did not become a jury verdict.

Truthaholics | 20 August 2026

After an eight-week Old Bailey trial and more than 37 hours of jury deliberation, the second Filton 25 trial has ended without guilty verdicts against the seven named defendants who stood before the court.

That is not a mass acquittal. It is not a finding that nothing happened. It is not necessarily the end of the case.

But it is a profound interruption of the story the state wished to tell.

The jury could not reach verdicts on the outstanding counts against Madeleine Norman, Hannah Davidson, Teuta Hoxha, Aleksandra “Ola” Herbich, Ian Sanders, William Plastow and Yulia Brigadirova. Sean Middlebrough, who was tried in absentia, was convicted of criminal damage by a reported 9–1 majority; the applicable reporting restriction must be respected.¹

William Plastow’s violent-disorder charge had already been dismissed during the trial for want of evidence.²

The Crown Prosecution Service may still seek retrials on the unresolved allegations. A hearing is expected in September to determine the next steps.³

So this is not the whole story.

But it is the story the state did not want: after weeks of trial, the prosecution did not secure guilty verdicts against the seven named defendants.

The case the jury heard

The trial concerned allegations arising from the 6 August 2024 action at Elbit Systems’ Filton site near Bristol. Six people were alleged to have entered the site and damaged drones and other equipment. The Trial Two defendants were not alleged to have entered the factory themselves. The prosecution case was that they had planned, assisted, encouraged, facilitated, documented or otherwise supported the action.⁴

That distinction is not incidental. It is the architecture of the prosecution.

Reporting indicates that the Crown relied on a broad facilitating or joint-enterprise theory: alleged reconnaissance, equipment lists, purchases, transport, filming, accommodation, food and communications.⁵ Those were allegations, not findings of guilt.

The criminal law can hold people responsible for intentionally assisting or encouraging an offence. But it cannot be permitted to turn political affinity, friendship, shared outrage, practical association or a belief in the Palestinian cause into collective criminal liability.

Joint enterprise must not become guilt by atmosphere.

After more than 37 hours of deliberation, the jury did not reach verdicts on the remaining charges against the seven named defendants.⁶

The criminal standard remains proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The state did not obtain that result.

Precision is not weakness

Truthaholics will not falsify the record to make a political point.

Sean Middlebrough was convicted of criminal damage in absentia, by a reported 9–1 majority. That conviction cannot be wished away.⁷

The seven named defendants were neither convicted nor acquitted on the outstanding counts. A hung jury leaves those allegations unresolved and permits the CPS to consider retrial.

That precision matters.

It protects the defendants from the false claim that they were convicted. It protects public understanding from the false claim that all were acquitted. And it protects the wider critique from the state’s favourite response to dissent: “You are exaggerating.”

There is no need.

After an eight-week Old Bailey trial, the Crown did not persuade the jury to return guilty verdicts against the seven named defendants.

The jury was discharged.

Truthaholics’ starting principle is evidence before labels; truth before spin.

That principle applies in every direction. It means refusing to call a hung jury an acquittal. It means refusing to erase the criminal-damage conviction returned in absentia. And it means refusing to let the state call political dissent “terrorism” where the legal and evidential basis for that label has not been proved.

Precision is not a retreat from solidarity. It is solidarity strong enough to survive scrutiny.

Eighteen months without conviction

The outcome cannot be separated from what came before it.

Public reporting indicates that some defendants spent up to 18 months on remand before Trial Two. CAGE says the cases exceeded normal custody-time limits, though the legal calculation, any extensions and the reasons for them remain matters for the court record.⁸

The essential point is not in dispute: people endured extraordinarily long periods of imprisonment before a jury returned no guilty verdicts against the seven named defendants.

Remand is formally not punishment. In lived reality, it takes time, health, work, homes, relationships and years that cannot be restored. The longer a person waits in custody for a trial, the less meaningful it becomes to say that the process itself is neutral.

A right that cannot be accessed promptly and fairly risks becoming a constitutional fiction.

If the CPS now considers a retrial, the public-interest test must be rigorous. The question is not simply whether another trial is legally available. It is whether one is necessary, proportionate and genuinely in the interests of justice after lengthy detention, an eight-week trial and a jury unable to agree.

The prosecutor’s duty is not to keep trying until a politically desired result appears.

It is to act fairly.

The question the jury asked

One reported moment from the trial speaks loudly.

According to 5Pillars, jurors asked whether the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists if convicted. The judge reportedly directed them that sentencing was a matter for the judge and should play no part in their decision on guilt.⁹

That direction is orthodox. Juries decide guilt; judges sentence.

But the question is revealing.

It shows that terrorism-related consequences had entered the consciousness of ordinary citizens sitting in the jury box. The Filton Four had already received terrorism-related sentencing findings after criminal-damage convictions. The possibility that political direct action may be transformed into “terrorism” after a jury verdict is no longer abstract.¹⁰

The same issue is now live for the Barclays Five, who face sentencing after criminal-damage convictions arising from a 2024 action at a Barclays branch. Defend Our Juries has described the prospective use of terrorism-related sentencing there as “an abuse of democracy”. That is campaign language—but it identifies a serious constitutional concern: property-damage convictions can become the gateway to exceptional terrorism consequences without a jury ever returning a terrorism verdict.¹¹

The legal question may be technical.

The democratic danger is not.

The public is not a rubber stamp

This was a jury of citizens.

It was not deciding whether Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe. It was not deciding the legality of Israel’s conduct. It was not deciding whether Elbit’s business is morally defensible. It was not deciding whether direct action is wise, effective or justified.

It was deciding criminal allegations against individual defendants, on the evidence it was permitted to hear.

The jury did not reach verdicts.

That does not establish innocence. It does not settle history. It does not mean a future jury could not reach a different conclusion.

But neither is it an administrative inconvenience.

A hung jury is a constitutional event.

It is the point at which a state accusation has failed to become a criminal conclusion. It is a reminder that official confidence is not proof, counter-terrorism rhetoric is not proof, and a politically freighted prosecution is not self-validating.

The jury room remains one of the few places where the state must confront ordinary human doubt.

That doubt is not disorder.

It is not extremism.

It is the criminal standard doing its work.

Political context cannot be a one-way valve

The Filton prosecutions exist within a political reality that courts and commentators have struggled to contain.

The action took place in August 2024 amid Israel’s assault on Gaza, global protest, international warnings of grave violations, and intense scrutiny of weapons manufacturers supplying the Israeli military. Defendants and supporters have consistently said that the action was motivated by a belief that Elbit equipment was connected to atrocities in Gaza.

The criminal law does not give anyone a blank cheque to damage property for political or moral reasons. That must be said plainly.

But neither should the law pretend that motive is meaningless.

The jury’s task concerns the evidence and legal directions properly before it. Sentencing is legally distinct. Yet a constitutional concern arises if political context appears too remote or prejudicial to explain a defendant’s conduct at trial, but later becomes central when the state seeks exceptional punishment.

That is the one-way evidential risk at the heart of these cases:

Political conscience cannot be excluded when it assists the defence, then reintroduced only when it may aggravate punishment.

Trial Two does not resolve that tension. But the jury’s inability to reach verdicts after weeks of hearing the case makes it harder to dismiss the wider concern as mere rhetoric.

No blank cheque for retrial

The CPS may decide that a retrial is warranted. That decision has not yet been announced and should not be prejudged.

But a retrial should not become automatic merely because the first jury did not give the prosecution the verdict it sought.

A second trial would mean renewed uncertainty, new legal costs, further disruption to families, more public expenditure and potentially further restrictions on people who have already spent lengthy periods awaiting trial.

The public-interest test must not become a mechanism through which the state tries repeatedly until it secures a politically acceptable result.

The state can prosecute. It can proscribe. It can imprison people on remand. It can seek a retrial.

But it cannot command belief.

Truthaholics conclusion

The Filton Trial Two outcome is not a clean legal ending.

Sean Middlebrough has been convicted of criminal damage in absentia. The remaining allegations against the seven named defendants are unresolved. The CPS may seek retrials.

But neither is this a normal prosecution outcome to be folded quietly into the machinery of the criminal courts.

For the seven named defendants, the state failed to obtain guilty verdicts after an eight-week trial and more than 37 hours of deliberation.

That matters.

It matters because people were held for months before the jury returned no guilty verdicts against them.

It matters because the prosecution tested broad theories of facilitation and association in a case freighted with political meaning.

It matters because jurors reportedly asked whether criminal-damage convictions could lead to terrorism sentencing.

And it matters because the line between political protest, direct action and counter-terrorism law is increasingly being redrawn after the fact.

For wider context, read Truthaholics’ previous work on Direct Action: Property Damage or Terrorism? Reviewing Jury Blindspots, Executive Overreach and Foreign Corporate Influence in the Filton 6 Trials; An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!; and Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action.¹²

Truthaholics’ position remains simple:

Evidence before labels. Truth before spin.

The state can seek a second trial.

It cannot make doubt disappear merely by calling it terrorism.

Notes

¹ Declassified UK, “Jury refuses to convict seven Palestine Action ‘organisers’ for Israeli arms factory raid”, 19 August 2026; 5Pillars, “Jury refuses to convict seven Palestine Action activists over Elbit factory raid”, 19 August 2026. The reports identify Sean Middlebrough as convicted in absentia and say the jury was unable to reach verdicts on the remaining counts involving the seven named defendants.

² Declassified UK reports that William Plastow was acquitted of violent disorder because of insufficient evidence. CAGE and 5Pillars report that the count was dismissed during trial.

³ 5Pillars reports a 14 September 2026 hearing concerning the future of the case; Declassified UK reports that a retrial hearing is expected in September. The CPS decision remains outstanding.

⁴ Declassified UK reports that the Trial Two defendants were accused of assisting the action at the Filton site rather than entering the factory themselves, and that six other people entered the premises.

⁵ Declassified UK reports prosecution allegations involving food, campsite costs and transport; 5Pillars reports allegations of reconnaissance, equipment lists, purchases, coordination and filming. These were allegations, not verdicts.

⁶ Declassified UK reports 37 hours of deliberations; 5Pillars reports more than 38 hours. “More than 37 hours” reflects the convergence of the reporting.

⁷ Declassified UK reports a 9–1 majority criminal-damage conviction in absentia for Sean Middlebrough. Any reporting restrictions applicable to the case must be observed.

⁸ Declassified UK reports defendants spending up to 18 months in pre-trial detention. CAGE states that the eight defendants collectively spent up to 18 months on remand and contends that each exceeded the legal remand limit; that is CAGE’s advocacy position, not a judicial finding.

⁹ 5Pillars, “Jury refuses to convict seven Palestine Action activists over Elbit factory raid”, 19 August 2026. The report states that jurors asked whether criminal-damage convictions might lead to terrorism sentencing and reports the judge’s direction that sentencing was for the court, not the jury.

¹⁰ Al Jazeera, “The British state has recast protest as terrorism”, 18 August 2026. This opinion article is cited as commentary, not as a court record.

¹¹ Defend Our Juries, X post dated 19 August 2026, supplied by a truthaholics blog reader, describing prospective terrorism-related sentencing of the Barclays Five as “an abuse of democracy”. This is campaign analysis, not a judicial finding.

¹² Truthaholics, “Direct Action: Property Damage or Terrorism? Reviewing Jury Blindspots, Executive Overreach and Foreign Corporate Influence in the Filton 6 Trials”, 28 May 2026; Truthaholics, “An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!”, 14 June 2026; Truthaholics, “Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action”, 16 June 2026.

This article is editorial and legal-policy analysis based on public reporting, including reporting by advocacy organisations. A hung jury is not an acquittal. The outstanding allegations remain unresolved unless and until concluded by the courts. This is not legal advice and does not speak for any defendant, legal representative, prosecutor or court.

And you know what, I’m tired of playing defense.

I’d like to know who the anonymous coward running the @[email protected] account is.

That person is defending Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people, slandering and attempting to silence voices that oppose it (and those trying to get aid to the Palestinian people), and generally apologising for and complicit in genocide all while maintaining their anonymity. If anyone should be losing their job, it’s that person, not Fabio.

Feel free to DM me for my Signal if you have any information as they should experience consequences for their actions.

Any information you provide will be kept in confidence.

And to the @Mastodon admins: consider this a formal complaint about an account that is engaged in genocide denial, genocide apologism, and complicity in genocide. I look forward to seeing what action, if any, you take, as does history.

#fediblock #israel #genocide #ethnicCleansing #apartheid #settlerColonialism #genocideDenial #genocideApologism #genocideComplicity #mastodon #fediverse #mastosonDotSocial #mastodonGGMBH

The #Genocide in #Gaza, or the End of the #Arab World
https://palestinechronicle.substack.com/p/the-genocide-in-gaza-or-the-end-of?triedRedirect=true
@palestine #gazagenocide #genocidecomplicity #Palestine #FreePalestine
"Edward Said, in a measured and exacting essay, recounted a pivotal moment: watching the signing of the Oslo Accords in New York, seated beside Mahmoud Darwish. Hearing Arafat, he thought he was listening to Rabin. He wrote that the shame was so deep he wished the earth would swallow him. He understood then: a threshold had been crossed.

Today, that threshold has become the norm. Gaza is no longer a diplomatic issue. It is a fault line: between memory and amnesia, morality and management, sovereignty and servitude.

The official Arab order has not faltered. It has abdicated. It no longer represents. It disables, surveils, and disciplines. It no longer thinks. It replicates.

This is not a crisis. It is a strategy. This is not a defeat. It is a doctrine: do not disturb the order. Preserve the flows. Silence the pain.

Palestine does not resist to exist. It resists to prevent the erasure of truth.

Gaza stands. Because if it falls, everything falls with it.

And those who abandon it today will answer. Not before a court, but before history."

A secret network of Western intelligence agencies, including those of the UK, provided Israel with help to carry out a campaign of assassinations of Palestinians living in Europe, a new report by a UK-based Jewish academic has revealed. Her report has been ignored by almost all the UK's 'mainstream' media.

https://skwawkbox.org/2025/05/15/uk-western-intel-agencies-helped-israel-murder-europe-based-palestinians-new-report/

#GenocideComplicity #Assassinations #ZionistWarCrimes