Campaigners have asserted that internal government documents indicate attempts by Home Office ministers and staff to sway police and prosecutors in their efforts to suppress activists, focussing on UK factories associated with an Israeli arms manufacturer.
Briefing notes acquired via freedom of information (FoI) requests by Palestine Action reveal information regarding government meetings that occurred prior to the 7 October Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent actions in Gaza. These meetings were aimed at providing “reassurance” to Elbit Systems UK, an Israeli arms manufacturer currently facing a direct action campaign from the group.
The legal proceedings against Palestine Action activists, who assert their mission is to safeguard Palestinian lives and prevent war crimes, have resulted in various outcomes, including convictions for offences such as burglary and criminal damage. However, there have also been acquittals by juries and magistrates, even in instances where defendants acknowledged their actions.
In addition to Home Office ministers participating in discussions with representatives from Elbit Systems, the extensively redacted briefing notes indicate that a director from the Attorney General’s Office, purportedly representing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), was also present at one of the meetings. It is indicated that officials from the Home Office reached out to law enforcement regarding Palestine Action.
According to Tim Crosland, a coordinator for Defend Our Juries, judicial restrictions on defendants’ ability to discuss their motivations are increasingly jeopardising the fundamental right of jurors to acquit based on their conscience. He stated: “These disclosures, despite significant redaction, serve as clear evidence of a long-standing issue: the government is actively working to prevent juries from acquitting individuals who challenge and oppose corporate complicity in breaches of international law and significant loss of life.”
“Political interference is a big problem in the system; it shows a failure in the whole thing that threatens democracy and the strength of the law, especially when it comes from groups with a lot of money and power.”
A note from a private secretary dated 2 March 2022 regarding a meeting between the then home secretary, Priti Patel, and Martin Fausset, the chief executive of Elbit Systems UK, stated: “Palestine Action’s criminal activity is subject to police investigation. While the police operate independently of government and we cannot dictate their response, my officials have communicated with the police concerning PA.”
A briefing note from 19 April of the previous year for a meeting involving Chris Philp, who was serving as a Home Office minister at the time, indicated that a director from the Attorney General’s Office would be present to represent the CPS. The CPS opted out of this meeting to maintain their operational autonomy.
The information within the section labelled “past lobbying” has been obscured.
A representative from Palestine Action indicated that the expressions of independence were inconsistent within the very sentences in which they were articulated.
“The activities occurring out of public view indicate substantial evidence of collusion involving government entities, a foreign private arms manufacturer, the CPS, the Attorney General’s Office, and law enforcement,” they stated. “This evident misuse of authority illustrates the state’s preference for the interests of Elbit Systems at the expense of the rights and freedoms of its citizens.”
Documents obtained via Freedom of Information requests indicated that officials from the Israeli embassy in London sought intervention from the Attorney General’s Office concerning UK court cases associated with the prosecution of protesters.
This month, the UK suspended 30 out of 350 arms export licences to Israel due to a “clear risk” that these licences could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. Pro-Palestinian groups argued that this action was insufficient, while supporters of Israel criticised it as unjustified.
A representative from the Home Office stated: “We completely acknowledge the operational autonomy of law enforcement and the independent judiciary, which continues to be the foundation of our policing framework.” The meetings occurred during the tenure of the preceding administration.
Philp, Patel, and Elbit Systems UK were all solicited for their input. At the time of publication, only Elbit provided a response, indicating its pride in being a supplier to the British armed forces.