Hark at the judge mandated lack of transparency, both in regard to the Israeli death merchant and the missing Filton camera footage (see section 4 in link).

9 Jan 2026
https://realmedia.press/the-filton-trial-defence-speeches/

3 - Elbit Systems
When opening the prosecution case, Ms Heer described Elbit Systems as an
"Israeli-linked defence company". I'm not going to labour this point, but it's a
matter for you whether that is a fair and accurate description of Elbit, or
something of a mischaracterisation. Either way, it wouldn't have escaped your
notice that on several occasions during the trial, if a question was asked about
Elbit Systems or what the witness knew about Elbit Systems, His Lordship
intervened and stopped it being asked.

The first time His Lordship intervened was when I was cross-examining the
security guard, Mr Shaw. I asked him what I thought was a pretty innocuous,
uncontroversial question. A yes/no question. I asked him whether he knew Elbit
was Israel's largest weapons manufacturer. The judge intervened and said if I
wanted to ask a question along these lines we'd need to have a discussion about
it. I responded in your presence that it was just one question. The judge asked
me to move on, and I did.

His Lordship also intervened during Charlotte's evidence. When I was asking her
questions, Charlotte was telling you about the Palestine Action training event
she had attended and what she was told about Elbit Systems. When His Lordship
intervened again, I said in the jury's presence that I was asking Charlotte
about the company targeted in this case, which was directly relevant to her
state of mind, and that this was a proper area for me to ask her about. The
jury were asked to leave court for a few minutes.

There's nothing unusual that when there's a dispute between the parties at a
criminal trial, or between one party and the trial judge, juries are often asked
to leave court for those matters to be discussed in their absence. When you
returned to court, I moved on to a different topic. In other words, Charlotte
was not allowed to give any further evidence about what was said about Elbit at
the Palestine Action Training event, or about what she knew about Elbit more
generally.

His Lordship also intervened during the evidence of Zoe Rogers when her
barrister Ms Mogan was asking her questions. Zoe was giving evidence about how
she'd read about Palestine Action on their website and on Instagram and how this
had led her to Elbit's website. Before Ms Mogan could ask Zoe about what she had
read on that website, His Lordship stopped her saying something like, "This is
an area outside what I have ruled is relevant - if you want to pursue this, we
will have to argue it. What Ms Rogers knew about Elbit has been adequately
covered".

In your presence, Ms Mogan tried to reason with His Lordship. She said that Zoe
should be allowed to give her account of what she'd learned from Elbit's
website. His Lordship said that Ms. Rogers had already given a sufficient
account and so Ms Mogan had no choice but to move on, which she did.

So that, in summary, is the position. His Lordship has restricted what the
defendants have been allowed to tell you they knew about Elbit and what they
knew about Elbit's role in the Israeli attack on Gaza. Consequently, you do not
know everything that the defendants knew about Elbit before each of them
individually decided to take that major step of getting involved in the action
against the factory in Filton.

For the avoidance of any doubt, before I'm criticised, our system does allow
trial judges to make rulings as to what evidence is relevant and what evidence
is not. If a judge decides that certain evidence should not be given on the
grounds that it is not relevant to any issue in the case, then that judge is
entitled to exclude such evidence, however strange it might seem, however much
the defendants or their lawyers might object.

But the consequence of such a judicial approach to the evidence in this case is
that you've only heard very limited evidence about Elbit, and how what the
defendants knew about Elbit influenced their decision-making - you've been
prevented from hearing any more. Having said all of that - and I hope I've
summarised it fairly - the little you have been permitted to hear from several
of the defendants about Elbit is nevertheless instructive.

You've heard that Elbit is Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, that Elbit
produces 85% of the weapons used by the Israeli military, that Elbit produces
drones, munitions, and battle simulators. You've heard that the weapons Elbit
was making were being sent to Israel, and that Elbit tests those weapons on
Palestinians. That Elbit was proud about producing 85 percent of Israel's combat
drones, that Elbit's CEO gave a talk during which he boasted that war was good
for business, and that Elbit's employees have stated publicly that they are
proud to be the backbone of the Israeli military. Finally, that the Filton
factory was Elbit's newest facility in the U.K. and was opened by the Israeli
ambassador.

So this is all important evidence in the case. And what the defendants told you
about Elbit are not just their beliefs. They are facts, and none of them were
disputed by the prosecution. Not one of them.

If any of the evidence that any of the defendants gave you about Elbit was false
or exaggerated or misleading, the prosecution would have challenged that
evidence, but they didn't. So you can be sure that what the defendants told you
about this company is true. There's no evidence to contradict any of it.

Only the jury can decide what weight to give the evidence you've heard about
Elbit, or any other evidence. You may think that it's incredibly important
evidence that you've heard when you assess the character of the defendants, the
credibility of their accounts, their conduct during the action, and their state
of mind at critical times during the chronology of events that culminated in
that action. It might be important to take into account, indeed to remember at
all times, that the target of this action was a massive weapons company that has
played a critical role in the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, as
opposed to, for example, a company that makes fluffy toys for children.

How can you reach true verdicts according to the evidence if you ignore the
unchallenged, uncontradicted evidence you've heard about this dreadful company?