@Subversivite Dec 4 I've been shocked, but not surprised, by the mainstream press coverage of Zoe's trial - the first trial for the Filton 24 1/ Dec 4, 2025 · 6:17 PM UTC
---- This BBC report for instance. It doesn't mention the court found zero evidence that anyone 'whipped' Elbit security guard Angelo Volante. Thank you @RealMediaGB for much better journalism - see the screenshots below 2/
---- The BBC is happy to quote shocking statements by Elbit security guards and police, but not the very different story which emerged under cross-examination 3/
---- Volante was forced to admit that the first physical confrontation of the night came from Elbit guards, not the activists, when security guard Nigel Shaw attacked one of them outside with a golf umbrella 4/
---- Jordan Devlin's barrister also established that Volante had attacked Jordan on three separate occasions - twice hitting him with a sledgehammer, karate kicking him, and putting him in a dangerous chokehold 5/
---- On each occasion Jordan was unarmed. The court was shown photos of bruises all over his body 6/
---- The police officer who witnessed the third attack on Jordan - Volante slamming the handle of a sledgehammer into his face and neck - somehow failed to mention it in his report 7/
---- Also, police tasered Leona Kamio without warning - and then accidentally tasered her a second time.
I found this footage among the most disturbing shown to the court 8/
---- It also emerged that the police used Pava spray, and Sam Corner had been sprayed in the eyes moments before he allegedly hit a police officer 9/
---- This narrative of 'activists being violent' is highly inaccurate. But it is a very convenient narrative for the government right now. If only they'd crack down this hard on the violence inflicted by Israel 10/
The Filton Trial – Woolwich Crown Court Daily reports from the Palestine Action Filton trial at Woolwich Crown Court.
November 18, 20251109 The trial of six people alleged to have taken part in a direct action against the Filton R&D facility of Elbit Systems in August 2023 began on November 17th 2025 at Woolwich Crown Court.
All six are charged jointly on three counts:
Aggravated burglary (Section 10 of Theft Act 1968) Criminal damage (Section 1 of Criminal Damage Act 1971) Violent disorder (Section 2 of Public Order Act 1986) Their actions were carried out under the umbrella of the Palestine Action network, which had been carrying out actions since August 2020 in an attempt to disrupt the flow of weaponry to Israel for use against the Gazan population.
Although the six defendants were initially arrested and held under terrorism legislation, at the time of the Filton action, Palestine Action was not proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation. The later decision to proscribe, announced by the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in July this year, has been challenged by the group’s co-founder Huda Ammori, and is subject to a judicial review taking place at the High Court on the 25th – 27th November.
A judgement from that hearing is expected in January. The present trial is also scheduled to end in January. It is not clear which will come first, and it is possible there will be reporting restrictions applied to the judicial review – some are already in place around this case.
The six defendants in the current trial are Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin. As well as the three counts listed above, Samuel Corner faces an additional charge under Section 18 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. All defendants have pleaded not guilty.
The case is heard by Mr. Justice Johnson.
DAY ONE – JURY SELECTION AND OPENING HOMILY
A large and noisy protest took place outside Woolwich Court throughout the first day, with drums and chants clearly heard in the court room.
All the defendants have been on remand and been refused bail for more than a year, and as is frustratingly common in criminal trials, the prison services proved unable to deliver them on time, despite their being woken up before 6am. During the morning, some final pre-trial arrangements were discussed, and a panel of potential jurors were finally brought into the court room at 12.30 to be asked a series of questions.
This panel process is not uncommon in trials, and is designed to weed out any clashes of interest or potential strong prejudices among jurors. The questions typically inquire whether jurors know any of the defendants, any of the witnesses to be called, or have any relationship with any of the locations which will come up in evidence. They were also asked if they or any family have connections with Palestine Action, Elbit System or its subsidiaries, or any involvement with the military equipment trade or manufacture. They were also asked whether they or any family members were in the Crown Prosecution Service, police, armed forces, Home Office, or the Foreign Office.
The next questions were much more particular to this case. Jurors were told that if they hold strong views on the events in Israel and Gaza, it may not necessarily preclude them from jury service, but that they would need to take an oath to try the defendants fairly on the evidence, and to hand a note to the judge if they felt unable to comply. The direct question was “do you have such strong views about the events in Israel or Gaza that you do not feel you could dispassionately discharge your oath to faithfully try the defendants and deliver true verdicts according to the evidence?”
Finally they were asked about potential personal commitments that would interfere with their sitting for the many weeks of trial envisaged.
The pool of jurors returned to the court after a lunch break and 14 people were sworn in before hearing an introduction, or ‘homily’ from Judge Johnson. He pointed out the various sections of the court and the where defendants, defence and prosecution barristers and other court staff would be sitting, and gave the usual warnings that the jury must not discuss the case outside the court, or indeed at any time when they are not all together. They were warned it is a criminal offence to research outside the court, or breach other directions, and that they must only consider the evidence put before them.
Although formal legal directions will be given again at the conclusion, Judge Johnson pointed to what he called a preliminary idea of the decisions the jurors will need to make in considering the charges against each defendant.
Re Aggravated Trespass: He told them they must decide (for each defendant individually) whether they entered the Elbit building without permission, whether they intended when they entered to damage or destroy property, and whether they had with them a weapon as they entered which was intended for use to injure any security personnel.
Re Criminal Damage: whether they did intentionally or recklessly damage any property.
Re Violent Disorder: whether as part of a group of at least three people, each defendant used or threatened violence (against either property or people) and if so whether someone present at the scene might fear for their safety.
For the final charge against Sam Corner, the jurors will need to consider whether he caused a really serious bodily injury to a police officer, and if so, whether he was acting in self-defence or in defence of another.
The judge then addressed the possible ‘strong views’ on Israel and Gaza. He said some people may feel that Israel is entitled to do what it has done in order to defend itself from Hamas. Others may ‘feel’ that Israel has acted unlawfully, even that it has committed genocide. Everyone, Judge Johnson said, is “entitled to their views”. But he warned the jury that such views are “entirely irrelevant” to the case in question.
The judge also addressed the issue of the proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action, which he said the prosecution would claim the defendants were acting jointly as members of. He noted that the action took place last August, well before the group was proscribed by Yvette Cooper, and that the challenge to that proscription and the ensuing judicial review was also irrelevant to this trial. He warned there may be a lot of press attention around that judicial review, and that jurors should ignore it.
The fourteen jurors were told they would hear an opening note from the prosecution tomorrow and have another chance to consider the names of witnesses and so on that may interfere with their ability to honour their oaths. If no problems emerge, the two extra jurors will be excused, and the trial proper will commence with the remaining 12 persons.
COMMENT: Given there are current international arrest warrants out for the Israeli PM and other Knesset members accused of crimes against humanity, and a wide array of international bodies (including the Lemkin Institute) describe the assault on Gaza as a genocide, can it really be described as merely a “view”, whether legally (as opposed to morally) relevant to this case or not? According to polls, the majority of people in this country would consider it not as a view but as a fact.
DAY TWO – JURY RESELECTED, AND PROSECUTION OPENING NOTES
The day began frustratingly with the news that the jury would have to be discharged due to fresh information about personal circumstances and commitments, so much of the morning was taken up with a repeat of yesterday’s selection process and the judge’s introduction and homily to 14 potential jurors, many of whom had already heard it the day before.
Around midday the prosecution counsel, Ms Heer, began with a very brief description of the events at the centre of the trial, outlining the alleged roles, intentions and actions of the defendants. She identified each of the defendants in the dock, stating their respective ages and then handed out two bundles containing written evidence and colour coded photographs of the six, which the jury will be able to refer to throughout the trial and which will link to prepared and edited video evidence later:
Charlotte Head (29), Samuel Corner (23), Leona Kamio (30), Fatema Rajwani (21), Zoe Rogers (22), Jordan Devlin (31)
Ms Heer told the jury that Elbit Systems UK Ltd is a company which manufactures “defence technology” whose parent company is based in Israel and which operates various sites in the UK. They were shown various maps and images of the Filton site just north of Bristol.
After a lunch break, the prosecution continued with its ‘opening notes’ – a fuller description over the next couple of hours of the timeline and actions alleged to have taken place. These set out the prosecution’s view of what happened and are not considered as evidence, although a few selected and edited clips of CCTV and body-worn camera footage were shown to the jury during the presentation.
It is alleged that:
Security guard Nigel Shaw began his shift at the Filton site at around 7pm on the 5th August 2024, brought in as an extra guard on top of the usual three staff, after a hole had been found cut in the perimeter fence earlier that day. At around 3.30 in the morning of the 6th, he saw a white prison van crash through the fence followed by people shouting ‘Free Palestine’ or similar. According to documents found later in police searches, these were members of what was called the ‘coverts’ (intending to get away), dressed in black and wearing masks. They were apparently carrying whips, hammers, axes and metal skewers, and threw some sort of flares. Another guard, Mr Volante ran round after hearing messages to help, and claims he was confronted by someone holding an axe and a whip. Shaw pushed that intruder to the ground and began hitting him with an umbrella, and tried to detain him. The intruder called out “we come in peace”, but others from the black team surrounded and tried to free him, allegedly hitting Mr. Shaw and then threatening both guards by cracking whips and setting off fireworks, shouting for them to “fuck off”. Volante managed to grab a whip and claims to have used it in self-defence, and the group turned around and ran towards the perimeter fence, escaping through the hole.
Mr Shaw is said to have suffered a cut to the head, other abrasions and “in the melee” had some caps to his teeth knocked out.
The so-called ‘overt’ team, in red overalls and unmasked had meanwhile used an angle grinder on the locks to the shutter door and the prison van had been driven at it to gain entry.
The jury were then shown some footage from GoPro cameras carried by the activists, of the van gaining entry to the building. This ‘red team’ carried large rucksacks and other equipment and further footage apparently shows them carrying things like bolt cutters and sledgehammers, and Ms Heer explained that within a few minutes they had gained access to the warehouse itself, starting to destroy as much technical equipment, including computers and security systems, as they could, and spraying red paint around from converted fire extinguishers.
The jury was shown photographs of extensive damage inside the factory, and to two vehicles outside.
The prosecution then described further altercations as security staff tried to intervene. Security guard Patrick Luke entered the warehouse, shouting that the police had been called and shouting for the activists to leave. He saw four of them, holding sledgehammers, whips and fireworks, who told him to “fuck off”. He retreated to the security office where the activists are alleged to have tried to barricade him in. Mr Volante ran in shouting and screaming, and struggled with Zoe Rogers who was described as wielding a sledgehammer.
After a pause due to technical problems in the courtroom, the jury were asked to look at some footage of the altercation between Ms Rogers and Volante, warned that it was difficult to see what was going on, but that they would have plenty of time to watch it again during the trial. According to Volante, he managed to grab the sledgehammer off Ms Rogers but she picked up another one. He warned her not to swing it, and she said “Get out of here and I won’t.” He says Mr Devlin tried to take the sledgehammer off him, and that he was struck with a whip and threatened with a saw. When he was then sprayed with a foam fire extinguisher he left.
Nigel Shaw made another appearance, apparently bleeding, and was again warned to leave by several of the activists. Mr Luke is said to have returned at this point, and apparently faced further threats during which he wrestled with Ms Kamio, but left after being struck with a whip and further threatened.
The police had arrived at this point, and Volante challenged Ms Kamio who raised her sledgehammer – he grabbed it off her at which point she was tasered by PC Adams, who arrested her as she struggled on the ground.
With paint and water on the floor, it appears various activists, security and police ended up slipping, with two further allegations of violence against both security staff and police, the worst of which is a claim that Samuel Corner hit Sergeant Evans twice with a sledgehammer as she struggled to detain Ms Rogers and Ms Kamio on the ground.
Ms Head and Ms Rajwani are said to have held their hands up and dropped to the floor where they were further arrested.
The jury were shown some clips of footage meant to highlight some of the allegations made, but the prosecution alluded to the poor quality and confusing nature of some of the images.
The rest of the afternoon dealt with further evidence pieced together from home raids and detective work, describing how the action had been formulated and building up a picture of planning and reconnaissance in the days leading up to August 6th.
After arrest, Charlotte Head provided a written statement denying any intent to commit violence and that she was committed to non-violence in all aspects of her life. She denied carrying a weapon and didn’t see fireworks being used against anyone. She states that the security guards were the only ones being violent. Samuel Corner and Leona Kamio made no comment on arrest. Fatema Rajwani made a written statement along similar lines to Ms Head denying any intention to be violent. She said she hadn’t seen fireworks or whips used against anyone, and stated that she had been compliant on arrest. Zoe Rogers made a similar written statement and added that she was scared especially when the security guards came in. Jordan Devlin gave another similar statement in writing, and complained that Mr. Volante had carried a sledgehammer, put him in a choke hold and had tried to bite his neck.
After summarising the legal definitions of the charges against the six defendants, Ms Heer finished by alleging that they had planned in advance to smash as much property as they could that night until forced to stop, and that if it involved threatening security guards or using force, then so be it.
For the next few weeks, the prosecution, which has made these claims and allegations, has to prove beyond reasonable doubt to this jury, that their interpretation and description of what happened that night is backed up by evidence.
Comment: The prosecution describes Filton as a facility manufacturing “defence technology”. According to trauma surgeon Leigh Evans, who has recently worked in Gaza, the Israeli Occupying Force is using drones equipped with loudspeakers which play the sound of children crying and calling for help. Their function is to draw people towards the drone, which then shoots or bombs them. Elbit make 85% of the drones used by the IOF, and Filton is a research and development hub.
Law and justice is surely meant to reflect morality, but will morality actually be admissable in this trial process or can a drone that mimics a crying child continue to be referred to as ‘defence technology’?
DAY THREE – PROSECUTION VIDEO PRESENTATION
Yesterday there were still 14 members of the public in court as prospective jurors. This morning, one of the initial 12 was excused by Judge Johnson, and one of the ‘extras’ took their place. The other ‘extra’ was then also excused, leaving in place the 12 people who will be considering all the evidence and then delivering their verdicts in several weeks’ time.
The prosecuting barrister, Deanna Heer KC, told the court that today she would begin the prosecution evidence by going through the CCTV and the body-worn camera footage. DC Phoebe Webber was sworn in as a police witness to verify where each piece of footage had come from and what it purported to show. She confirmed that the edited presentation had come from security cameras at Filton and nearby buildings, together with body-worn camera footage from security and police officers, as well as some footage seized from devices that contained footage from body-worn cameras used by the members of Palestine Action.
Before the first clip, the jury was asked to go through photos and maps in their bundles, to familiarise themselves with the prison van, and the layout of the site. Then they were shown some footage of the prison van arriving in the delivery car park. In the distance, the dark (3.33am), and the rain, we can see some figures appear around the rear of the van. As footage from a different camera is played, it looks like there are around a dozen people dressed in black, and they begin to set off smoke flares and fireworks.
The sound in the courtroom is problematic as speakers appear to echo each other, but we see that a security guard appears round the corner of the building and he is met with shouts of ‘Get back’. Among the items carried by the activists are some whips, and we see that the security guard has managed to grab one of these.
The jury is shown footage from different cameras as events unfold. There appear to be two main altercations with two security guards outside the building and after some time, the ‘black team’ exit the area by climbing over an inner fence and making their escape through a hole made earlier in the perimeter fence. They are being chased by one of the security team who appears to be holding a whip and an axe.
While all this was going on outside the building, a Palestine Action clip shows an angle grinder being used on the lock to the loading bay, and then the prison van is driven twice at speed into the shutter, first breaking it, and then gaining access to the main warehouse.
As well as a mixture of camera sources the prosecution presentation shows animations of the inside of the building, maps marking out where cameras are, and it pauses with colour coded arrows matching the colours assigned to the six defendants who we see emerging from the prison van and making their way further into the building.
During the course of this trial, the presentation footage will no doubt be revisited, as the various witnesses take the stand, and a second-hand description of it all here will be of no sensible use.
After a break for lunch, we can hear the solidarity protests going on outside, with their chants quite audible in the court room.
Over the next couple of hours, in broad terms what the jury is shown are selected clips designed to build the case against the defendants, and may or may not be a fair representation of the whole action. This is usual in a criminal trial at this stage. The defence are likely to show other clips that have been disclosed to them, in order to counter some of the accusations made, and to add context that may be missing from this first compilation.
The prosecution’s sequence shows some altercations between security guards and some of the six members of the ‘red team’ who had gained entry. It shows some property damage, although this was mainly some shots showing paint spray, and the smashing of what was described as a ‘disabled toilet’ (although it is not clear whether there were any other toilet facilities). The only shot of real damage to ‘defence technology’ is a few seconds of some Palestine Action footage shown near the end of the day, which appears to show a military drone. The footage also shows the arrival of the police, their use of tasers against two of the defendants, and the moment PC Evans appears to be hit with a sledgehammer, but much of it on first sight is confusing – the body-worn footage contains a lot of movement and accompanying motion blur, and the CCTV cameras tend to be time-lapsed, so movement is not continuous.
This is just a flavour of what the jury has been shown today. Over the course of the trial, they will have a chance to rewatch these clips, along with other ones, and they will enjoy the benefit of hearing witness commentary and cross-examination.
Tomorrow, the security guards are expected to take the stand.
DAY FOUR – THE DEFENCE QUESTIONS VIDEO EVIDENCE AND SECURITY GUARDS TAKE THE WITNESS STAND
Defence barristers asked police witness DC Webber how the compilation of footage shown to the jury had been put together. She agreed that decisions had been made by police about what went into that film, and was asked about shots from certain cameras that had been excluded.
The barrister for Fatema Rajwani, Catherine Oborne, began her cross-examination of DC Webber, by reminding the jury that the film they’d seen was not always in chronological order, and often jumped back to different angles. She asked to review certain sections where her client was in shot, and introduced a new clip from the body-worn video (BWV) of one of the police officers. She focussed on the time that police had arrived, and emphasised that both Ms Rajwani and Ms Head were complying with orders, shouted by Mr Volante, to remain on the floor.
The jury was next shown footage from a camera left out of the presentation, which appeared to have a time-lapse of 17 seconds. Webber was asked why it skipped when other cameras didn’t, and when she said she didn’t know, she was asked whether inquiries had been made with Elbit. It appeared not. At one point the clip was paused, showing security officer Mr Volante kicking out with his foot while holding a sledgehammer.
After a short break, the first security guard witness, Mr Shaw, took his oath behind a screen shielding him from members of the public present in court.
Shaw was guided through his evidence by prosecutor Ms Heer. We heard that he worked part-time at Filton, sub-contracted through a security company, and he had been brought in on an extra shift that night to keep an eye on a hole in the outer fence which had been discovered earlier.
Around 3.30am, he heard the prison van coming through the fence, and his first contact with intruders was with someone he described as Arabic and dressed in black who apparently told him this was a “peaceful protest”. But the guard told the court the man had swung an axe at him, and Shaw struck him multiple times with an umbrella he had and they ended up on the ground. Another guard Mr. Volante had arrived, and suggested they leave, but Shaw hung on, he said, even when other intruders had started hitting him. He explained to the court that he was trying to drag the man round the corner to detain him, but around this time there was a blow to his head and he gave up. The intruders in black clothing were still shouting and advancing and he thought they were swinging sledgehammers, other hammers and pick-axes, and some emergency flares were thrown.
Hearing noises from inside the building he entered and came across two females and a male dressed in red clothing holding sledgehammers. They were telling him to get out, to ‘fuck off’. He said they told him to open doors to another part of the building, but he claimed he was just a casual worker and his fob wouldn’t operate those doors. The male began smashing up a toilet, and Shaw tried to hold that door to keep him in there, but then gave up and went into the office area. He was feeling dazed and met again with Volante, who told him he looked like he needed medical help. They went outside the building, and returned as police arrived. Once arrests had been made, Shaw went in the same ambulance as a female police officer, and at the hospital received some medical attention including stapling of a wound on his head. He told the court that he had multiple bruising and that a tooth cap had “come off in the struggle”, which was later repaired. He also reported that his car, which had been parked near the fence, had been vandalised.
After a break for lunch, it was time for Mr. Shaw to be cross-examined by defence barristers, beginning with Mr. Menon, who first asked him whether he knew at the time of the incident that “Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer”. The prosecution immediately objected, and Judge Johnson told Menon that if he wanted to ask questions like this they would need to have a discussion about it later. Mr. Menon requested an answer from Mr. Shaw, but the judge insisted he move on. The context appeared to be that Menon went on to ask whether the guard was aware of Palestine Action’s protests and actions against the company, and whether he’d been given specific training in relation to protest. Shaw said he’d received verbal instruction to call police and to intervene if it was safe to do so.
Menon then went on to the first interaction, after the van had been seen and heard hitting the shutters. There was then a very confused exchange in which Shaw was adamant he had had a struggle with an Arabic-looking man wielding an axe, prior to the point at which he is seen in footage running at someone and hitting them several times with an umbrella and bringing them to the ground. His recollection didn’t seem to be backed up by evidence, and Menon reminded him he’d told the jury earlier about a man with an axe, but he maintained that in his mind that was a separate incident before what we saw on video. He was asked whether any injuries he received had occurred inside the factory, and he affirmed they had all happened before he went in, that is, he didn’t receive any contact from anyone in the ‘red team’.
Barrister Mr Wainwright, acting for Samuel Corner, picked up on the answers just given. In Shaw’s witness statement (given later in the day after the event) he had referred to just one incident outside the building, but now seemed confused as to whether there were two. He agreed there didn’t seem to be any evidence of two incidents.
Moving on, once he was in the building, we’d seen Shaw running towards people wielding his umbrella. His evidence had suggested he was threatened and attacked – he also said the group had tried to get him to open a door to give them access to offices. On reviewing the footage and under cross-examination he conceded they were telling him to leave, to ‘fuck off’, and not to give them access. He was also shown footage of Samuel Corner leading the way and showing him how he could go out via the shutter – a female, thought to be Kamio, also asks him if he’s OK and tells him he needs to go because he is bleeding. Mr. Shaw concedes what is being evidenced, and also that he then followed Mr Corner who had begun smashing a toilet area, and tried to trap him in there by holding the door for a while before deciding to go outside. Shaw agreed that no-one in the building had struck him.
Finally Mr. Wainwright asked him about the umbrella. Shaw said it was provided by Elbit. He was asked whether it was heavy and whether he’d heard of a ‘self-defence’ umbrella. He described it as a golfing umbrella.
Ms Heer tried to clear up the confusion about incidents outside the building, playing some footage again. A man is seen with a whip, not an axe, in his hand, and Shaw attacks him with the umbrella. Shaw’s BWV footage shows him grappling with that man on the ground. The man is heard saying “I come in peace”. When Ms Heer shows him more footage of a group calling for him to ‘back off’, ‘move back’, and ‘fuck off’, it seems there is another man on the ground, and Shaw is asked if he might have misremembered and got them the wrong way round. He now says in that case there must have been a third incident.
The confusion is left without resolution.
After a short break, security guard Angelo Volante took the witness stand, and the prosecution took him through the events of the night.
He confirmed he worked full-time with Elbit through a sub-contractor mostly at another site, but also at the Filton facility. He described his uniform and the operation of his BWV. He was in the security hut at the front of the building when he received a radio call, and his first sight of the intrusion was smoke, flares, and people in dark clothes letting off what he thought were fireworks. When he got round to where Mr Shaw was, he said he saw the group of ten or more had a variety of items such as sledgehammers, single-handle axes, crowbars, a paintball marker, some longer objects, and some leather whips. He said they were shouting aggressively at him to get back.
One of the group was coming along the side of the building and stopped a few feet away, when Shaw tackled him with his shoulder and the umbrella, then the two guards held him on the ground, removing a whip and a ‘hatchet’ from him. Volante said he got up because they were being encircled, and Shaw carried on holding the man while the group tried to release him, hitting Shaw on the back of his body. He said he was confident in remembering they must have hit him with objects as well as hands, and eventually Shaw released the man, and the two guards tried to ‘maintain their ground’ while the group was shouting at them to get back. He thinks they may have thrown one or two fireworks, and cracked whips, possibly with some contact.
Volante had by that time got a whip and an axe in his hands and said he cracked it “to give like for like”, managing to get his whip around the hands of one person, and “caught a lump hammer with the whip and pull it out of an individual’s hand”. He also said that Shaw attacked one of the intruders and got them to the ground. After some more confrontations the group retreated towards the fences, climbing the inner one and making an escape via the hole in the outer fence.
Volante tried to grab someone at the top of the fence, who then flung themselves over and fell to the ground. He said he was trying to grab and detain them because they had committed crimes and it was his job to protect the site. There was also an exchange of words – Volante said something like “See you again guys – we’ll be waiting for you” and they were calling him a fascist and shouting about genocide.
Volante saw that Shaw was bleeding, and told him to go round to the front of the building for access and to get medical help, but he refused, saying people had broken in.
Volante said his BWV had stopped recording, perhaps in the physical interactions, and he switched it on before entering the building.
There he says he saw a ginger-haired woman and a long-haired “Scottish” man who he rushed at to seize his sledgehammer as he posed the greatest threat, claiming that the woman had swung at him with her hammer, and he warned her not to do it again “or things will get serious”.
There was a pause while he was shown footage of the incident, which seemed to show something different, and he agreed that in fact he had taken the sledgehammer off the woman and then there was a struggle for control of that with the male. Watching more footage Volante says he used a kick to stop the male coming closer.
Volante describes two more women approaching, one carrying an angle-grinder, the other a whip which he claims she used at least once against him. Someone then sprayed him with foam from a fire extinguisher and he went outside.
Soon the police were arriving, and next Volante spoke about ensuring they got into the building, and then spoke about seeing one of the intruders struggling with a police officer – the same male, he said, that he had interacted with earlier. Volante said he grappled that male to the ground, held him round his waist with his legs and administered a “choke hold”, warning the intruder that he would “incapacitate” him, at which point he complied. The male accused Volante of assaulting him, and the security guard said that he had only used the choke hold to aid the police. Ms Heer showed Volante a clip which appeared to show him using the handle of a sledgehammer he had picked up, and pushing it against the neck of the ‘Scottish man’. There was a lot of confusion in evidence at this point and the prosecutor had to show Mr Volante the clip again, but in the end it seemed his evidence was that he used the sledgehammer against one male, to hold him back, while trying to deal with another male holding a sledgehammer, which he claimed may have made contact with him.
Next, he walked round a partition towards two women, who he started screaming at to get on the floor. Asked why, he said it was to shock and intimidate them.
Finishing the prosecution evidence, he was led through a short roundup of what followed. He said he did a sweep of the building and picked up various items, helped the police with some injured individuals, and showed officers the hole in the fence. He was also asked about any injuries he had sustained. He described a minor laceration, a blood blister, a scraped knee, and some muscular/skeletal pain in the following days.
That concluded the fourth day of trial. In the morning, Mr. Volante will be cross-examined by defence barristers.
DAY FIVE – THE CONFUSED MILITARY SECURITY GUARDS
Lead barrister Mr Menon (representing Charlotte Head) began the cross-examination of security guard Angelo Volante this morning. Volante confirmed he had worked for Elbit full-time for the past 18 months or so, largely at the Aztec West HQ nearby (which closed in September this year). His background in security had been intermittent and he had a long military background in the Royal Engineers as a reservist. He was asked whether he’d been present at any of the several Palestine Action protests at Aztec West or elsewhere, and what training or instruction he’d had in dealing with protest, and he indicated he was encouraged to intervene as well as call the police.
Mr Menon suggested that Volante would know the purpose of the ‘black team’ was to create noise, confusion and distraction to allow the ‘red team’ to try and commit as much damage as possible. The guard agreed that might be the case, but said they were also violent.
Referring to the footage seen several times yesterday, Menon said it showed one of the black team moving forward, stopping some distance away in a sort of face-off, and then Mr. Shaw attacks him with the umbrella and brings him to the ground – this (despite Mr. Shaw’s confusion) being the first physical interaction at all.
That footage, around half a minute, is from Volante’s BWV, which then stops recording. He’s asked whether he switched it off and he claims that he didn’t. The next clip is apparently from a few minutes later, when the activists are trying to leave via the hole in the fence. Volante says this is when he realised the camera was off, and switched it back on.
Menon then asks about Volante’s testimony given yesterday when he said he took an axe and a whip off the person Mr. Shaw had attacked, and asked him what he’d done with them. At first the guard replied that he thought he’d dropped them on the ground, but agreed he might have taken them inside “to stop them getting in anyone else’s possession”, but was pretty sure he didn’t have them when he confronted the first ‘red team’ individuals.
The footage from his BWV is shown again – this is the tussle over possession of a sledgehammer – the moment that caused some confusion yesterday when the prosecution took him through events. Menon noted that again his BWV stopped filming. The guard was unsure why it had stopped, or at what point it may have come off his lapel – it was found later.
Volante was next challenged about his claim that the woman in the black cap had whipped him – there was no video evidence to back up this accusation.
Moving on to his next interaction with Ms Head, Volante was shown security guard Mr. Luke’s BWV footage, which showed him screaming at Ms Head and another female activist to get down on the floor. This was the moment he said yesterday that he was trying to intimidate and shock them. They can be seen with their hands in the air, while his face is contorted as he shouts at them. He continues screaming even when they comply and are face down spreadeagled below him. Mr Menon asks whether this is part of his training in dealing with protesters – he answered that it was to “stop further violence”.
Ms Hammad, the barrister representing Leona Kamio, then asks about the interactions in the alcove area and why footage from a camera covering that space was unavailable. Volante couldn’t help with this.
In evidence yesterday, Volante had claimed that Kamio approached him with an angle grinder. He was shown footage in which she actually appeared to be holding a sledgehammer, while it was Volante himself who appeared to hold an angle grinder in one hand and a small hammer in the other, and was swinging them. Ms Hammad accused Volante of being very angry, causing one of the activists, Mr. Devlin, to tell him to ‘calm down’. The guard said he was ‘animated’ rather than angry, wasn’t using the tools as weapons, and was attempting to disarm the intruders. It can be seen that that Mr. Devlin is actually unarmed. Kamio is seen moving around with a sledgehammer, and then using it to smash up some computer equipment. Volante agrees that at no point is she seen with an angle grinder, let alone threatening him with it.
Barrister for Zoe Rogers, Ms Mogan shows footage of Volante in the corridor with a whip in his hand screaming at Ms Rogers and others that they were “being recorded”. Mogan reminded him that he was aware of previous Palestine Action protests aimed at damaging Elbit equipment, and that yesterday he had said he had grabbed a sledgehammer off Mr Devlin. Playing footage, it seemed to show him actually seizing the sledgehammer off Zoe, and she gets flung towards a wall. It also looks like he is then holding the sledgehammer with its head out in front of him, and Zoe picks up another sledgehammer from the floor, struggling with its weight and turning through 360 degrees as he approaches her with his hammer in front of him.
Yesterday Volante told the court that her hammer made contact with him, but now he accepts that that wasn’t in his statement to the police, and that it may not have done. Ms Mogan suggested he had swung his sledgehammer at Zoe, showing some more footage, in which the shadow of the hammer appeared as though raised, and Zoe covering her face in response. He had already accepted that he had kicked Mr Devlin, and he now acceded that Zoe might have “thought” that the hammer would hit her, but maintained he hadn’t swung it at her. Volante also agreed that, although his BWV was no longer recording at that time, it was “possible” that Ms Rogers ended up on the ground.
Mr Morris, barrister for Jordan Devlin, then asked Mr Volante to acknowledge that police officers had shown him unedited footage from his own BWV a few days before trial, and asked whether he noticed anything additional to what he’d described in his original statement at the time, especially that when he entered the building he clearly had one of the whips in his hand. Volante said he hadn’t noticed that. Mr. Morris suggested that Volante had run down the corridor with whip in hand, screaming at Mr. Devlin who was unarmed, and inquired whether Volante had used any de-escalation training, rather than engaging in force on first contact with Devlin and Rogers. Morris asked whether he was registered with the Security Industries Association (SIA) and whether their training included hitting someone in the face with the handle of a sledgehammer. Volante said that any such contact was unintentional and that that was why he also hadn’t mentioned it in his police statement.
Mr. Morris showed the court a screenshot from footage, that appeared to show contact described, and then handed out several photos of injuries that Mr. Devlin had sustained. One shows a round red mark that Mr. Morris suggests is the shape of a sledgehammer head. Volante is also asked about any conversation they had in the struggle, and whether when they were face-to-face, he had tried to bite Mr. Devlin on the neck. He said Mr. Devlin had likened the struggle to Star Wars and that he was a rebel or Jedi to Mr. Volante’s empire, but that no bite had occurred.
After the struggle in the alcove, the next time Devlin and Volante engaged was when the police had arrived. Volante denies he hit Devlin in the face with the edge of the hammer, but admits he then put him in a choke hold, which under further questioning he reveals he learnt from martial arts training which he’d done when younger, reaching a blue belt in JuJitsu but only a white belt in TaeKwondo. Volante described the manoeuvre as a ‘rear naked choke hold’, which could be dangerous if not administered properly. He is shown a further photograph of marks to Devlin’s neck, but says he hadn’t caused those. A police BWV video sequence is shown where Mr. Devlin attempts to stand up, and Volante uses the handle of the sledgehammer against his neck to force him back down. A disagreement ensues, in which Volante claims he was defending himself and trying to prevent Devlin from grabbing the sledgehammer, while Morris argues that Devlin poses no threat at the time and Volante was performing an aggressive and dangerous act. Another photo showed Devlin’s bruised face and black eye, corresponding to the side of his face that Volante was accused of hitting. Volante admits that he struck him and that he fell back.
Footage shows Devlin telling the police Volante had assaulted him and pointing at his face. Mr. Morris also notes to the court, that although referred to throughout as Scottish, Mr. Devlin’s accent is actually Northern Irish.
With that cross-examination concluded, the prosecutor Ms Heer says that she will need to check through some of the new footage shown that she hadn’t been made aware of, so it is agreed that will happen over a lunch break.
—
On return, Ms Heer says she has no re-examination questions for Mr. Volante, and the next witness, security guard Patrick Luke is brought in to court and Ms Gargitter for the prosecution takes him through his evidence.
Mr Luke is sub-contracted, like the others, to Minerva Elite Security, and was working full-time at the Elbit Filton factory and was acting team leader. He was in the control room where there are screens from the CCTV cameras when the incident began and he noticed figures dressed in black following the prison van in, waving various items such as fire extinguishers, crowbars and fireworks. Mr Luke hit the panic button to notify police, and also called the guard known as ‘Matty’ at the front gate telling him to phone the police as well.
Mr. Luke described entering the warehouse area and seeing four people who he described as having sledgehammers, a whip, an angle grinder and some fireworks in a bag. He said a female approached swinging a sledgehammer aggressively, and he pushed it away and struggled with her, then used her as a shield. He claimed she called her friend to help, who looked like she was going to get a firework out of her bag to throw at him, as a man and another woman approached him with a hammer and a whip respectively. He said he retreated towards the control room area where he saw Mr. Shaw with a wound to his head. After getting him seated, he said he wanted to go back into the warehouse but a large pallet had been put in front of the door.
There seems to be some confusion about the sequence of events and Mr. Luke is shown some footage once more to try and clear it up. He agrees he may have ‘misordered’ it. Watching again, it seems the incident he described earlier actually occurred after he came through the door with the pallet against it, and he was confused as to who had a whip, and whether the sledgehammer was handed from one person to another, and whether there was an angle grinder on the floor.
Ms Gargitter moved on to question Mr. Luke about the time he re-entered the warehouse once the police had arrived. He described keeping an eye on the two women Mr. Volante had forced to the floor – they remained down and compliant. Over a partition he could see police officers were arresting two women on the ground and said he witnessed a male hit one of the officers on the back with a sledgehammer. After describing that male he is asked to look at the footage some more, and seems confused as to whether he had described the right person, but he confirms that he went over to help and hold the two detained females on the ground.
After a short break, Mr Menon cross-examines Mr. Luke and takes him through the footage once more. He agrees that the first woman is holding a whip and he seizes it off her – and although he claims she used it against him there doesn’t appear to be video of that. While he’s grappling with the woman who originally held a sledgehammer, the other woman hands her hammer to the male and runs off somewhere. After a bit more confusion, Mr. Luke agrees that the next time he sees the two women, it is after what Menon describes as Mr. Volante’s ‘Incredible Hulk’ moment, and that they remain on the ground compliant until they are arrested by police.
Samuel Corner’s barrister, Mr. Wainright, then speaks to Mr. Luke pointing out that several of his assertions have turned out to be wrong. He was wrong about the sequence of events, he was wrong that a female passed a sledgehammer to a male who tried to use it against him. In his police statement Mr. Luke said he disarmed two women of a sledgehammer and an angle grinder, but later accepted this was wrong too. Mr. Wainwright took Luke through footage once more and showed that he had mixed which of the two males had the sledgehammer, which direction they had come from, and indeed whether anyone had actually tried to hit him.
Ms Hammad (for Leona Kamio) tried to clear up confusion of the order of events, and particularly at what point Mr. Luke had actually switched his camera on. He had said he started recording after hitting the panic button in the control room, but Ms Hammad showed footage that appeared to show him entering the warehouse from the loading bay area before that. She suggested that he had had some sort of tussle with one of the females at that point (before switching on his BWV) and then he went to the control room. Mr. Luke was adamant this was not the case. Ms Hammad finished her questioning by asking him whether he had been hit by the woman with the sledgehammer – he said he thought it had grazed him, but accepted it hadn’t hit him. Ms Hammad suggested he had merely grabbed it.
Next, Ms Oborne asked some questions about the allegation that Fatema Rajwani had a bag of fireworks and was intending to throw one at him. Taking him through his BWV footage once more, he acceded there didn’t appear to be any bag, or possibly any fireworks, and that in fact Ms Rajwani had taken a simple flare out of her pocket.
After a long day of intense concentration, the judge thanked the jury, reminding them not to discuss the case outside or do any research of their own, and to ignore the ongoing protests that could be heard once again from outside. He told them to return on Monday morning, when the case will continue, but that they would not be needed on Tuesday next week nor on Wednesday morning, while the court deals with other matters.
on December 6, 2025, 9:03 am