The Filton Six: The People Rule, OK? – Part 2

As we discussed in Part 1, the ruling in the case of the Filton Six demonstrates that a lawfully convened jury of the people is sovereign. The jury serves justice—the Rule of Law. Government legislation and directions issued by judges are nothing more than advisory.

Parliament’s claim, that it is sovereign, that it can “create or end any law,” and that this is “a principle of the UK constitution” is self-evidently false. Parliament can create administrative law—legislation—but it is the people, through trial by jury, who decide upon enforcement of the law of the land. A jury of the people can annul any and all legislation.

Equally, parliament’s assertion that “[g]enerally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation” is only true insofar as courts “generally” don’t. Nonetheless, as we have just seen in the case of the Filton Six, juries can and do overrule judges who insist on the strict enforcement of legislation.

It is, in fact, “a principle of the UK constitution” that the people are the sole arbiters of the law in jury-led trials. This evident fact explains why the UK government is proceeding to remove our constitutional right to trial by jury as far and as fast as it possibly can. It is desperate to deny our constitutional rights and liberties.

The judiciary can set non-binding and binding case precedents in common law jurisdictions, such as the UK, only to the extent that the precedent is allowed to stand by a jury. It doesn’t matter if that precedent is set in a bench trial—a trial conducted without a jury—because a subsequent jury can effectively overturn any previous case precedent. A jury can set a new precedent as and when it deems necessary.

A jury can spurn directions issued by judges during trials. The jury has the ultimate and indubitable constitutional right to judge, not just the evidence presented in the case before them, but the application of the law. The jury is free to apply or not apply the law, as it sees fit, based upon the evidence that it alone judges.

Juries are free to act on their conscience in the pursuit of justice.

The people rule, OK?

The Political Context

No one has the lawful right to break into private property and smash up or damage the products stored on those premises, even if they are weapons. That is, of course, unless they have lawful excuse and their actions are judged to be proportionate.

The jury’s duty is to consider nothing but the pertinent evidence. The political context should be immaterial to the jury. Their only objective is to ensure that justice is served based solely on the evidence. The same is supposedly true for the judiciary, though that does not appear to have been the case in the Filton Six trial.

While there are some honest judges who honour their judicial oath and their affirmation of allegiance, there are plenty who don’t. All too often, UK judges do not “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” Judges are seldom held accountable for their unlawful transgressions.

The vaunted separation of powers, purportedly enshrining the judiciaries’ independence from the political branches of government, supposedly diluting political authority, is a “loose arrangement” in the UK. Consequently, the “separation” routinely amounts to nothing. Whenever the governments wants a favourable finding or ruling, it simply appoints an Establishment stooge judge to deliver whatever outcome it wants.

Trial by jury is our primary lawful protection against such dictatorship and its resultant tyranny. This explains why the government wishes to get rid of jury-led trials.

In the Filton Six trial, Mr Justice Johnson emphasised that the jury’s views on Elbit Systems’ activities were “entirely irrelevant.” He urged them to focus exclusively on the evidence he allowed to be heard. He did not tell them about the swath of evidence related to Elbit Systems conduct he had previously ruled inadmissible.

For Mr Justice Johnson, Elbit Systems’ role in genocide was, blatantly, not “irrelevant” evidence, as he claimed. He would not have barred it if it was.

The inadmissible evidence included notes taken by one of the defendants detailing how Elbit Systems weapons and technology were used by the Israeli government to commit war crimes. Mr Justice Johnson withheld this evidence from the jury. The judge repeatedly intervened, and upheld prosecution objections, whenever defence arguments mentioned Elbit Systems UK’s part in crimes against humanity.

To be clear: Mr Justice Johnson ruled that none of the accused were allowed to explain to the jury why they acted as they did. Johnson’s ruling on defence evidence inadmissibility was biased. His ruling also appears to have been politically motivated.

In previous, similar trials of activists who disrupted Elbit Systems’ operations, where Elbit Systems UK’s culpability was considered, the activists actions were found to have been proportionate and the prosecutions failed. The suppression of highly relevant defence evidence in the Filton Six trial was an attempt to ensure that didn’t happen again. Johnson’s inadmissibility ruling could not have been further removed from any notion of serving justice.

The inadmissibility favoured the prosecutions. It was an apparent attempt to mislead the jury and seemed designed to set up the trial to secure convictions that could then be used by the government for its objectives. This model of so-called “justice” is commonly referred to as a kangaroo court.

The trial of the Filton Six has backfired on the government. Nevertheless, unless we are extremely vigilant, not only is this simply a temporary setback, the government could yet turn it into a resounding victory.

The Palestine Action Factor

The six activists were named “the Filton Six” by Palestine Action. There is no doubt that they acted under the umbrella of Palestine Action.

Given the evidence available at the time (see Part 1), the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to charge the Six with offences related to the “intent” to commit violent acts seemed like a massive overreach. Once we realise, however, that “intention” is crucial to successful prosecutions under terrorist legislation, the CPS’s otherwise inexplicable decision suddenly makes twisted sense.

The CPS is supposedly “independent of police and the government.” It’s sole remit is said to be to bring prosecutions “without bias” in order to “deliver justice in every case.”

Unless the CPS is staffed by legal ignoramuses, it is hard to see why the CPS brought charges against the Six which the evidence clearly didn’t support. For its charges to have any chance of being proven, the evidence relating to Elbit Systems UK’s arms sales to Israel would need to be struck out. Mr Justice Johnson ensured that it was.

If the CPS’s motivation was overtly political, then, the charges were necessary. Of course, if that is true, then CPS pretensions of independence, impartiality and a commitment to justice are meritless.

The CPS notes, to gain a conviction for terrorist related offences, the violence or destruction must be “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.” That is to say, there must be a planned intention of some kind.

Obviously, the Filton Six planned to destroy Elbit System UK’s property for an objective purpose. But that purpose was to prevent the far more serious crime of genocide and Mr Justice Johnson ruled that the defence of lawful excuse could not be argued (See Part 1). The subject was verboten from the outset.

As none of the Six were prosecuted under anti-terror laws, the trial was evidently designed to demonstrate some sort of “terrorist connection”—to show that the crimes committed had terrorist aims. With the courts determination to avoid any discussion of lawful excuse, the criminal damage charges could not be used for this purpose. The only available avenue to try to get a terrorist connection to stick was argumentation in respect to the alleged violence. Thus, the Six were charged with aggravated burglary.

As we are about to discuss, showing the intent to commit violence was key to the government’s objectives. The CPS patently did not act either independently or impartially. Nor did the judiciary. The government’s clear goal was to use the convictions to support the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation and the CPS, assisted by Mr Justice Johnson, duly obliged.

The Filton Six were arrested on 6th August 2024. Palestine Action was formally listed as a proscribed terrorist group on 5th July 2025 and the trial commenced on 17th November 2025. Shortly before listing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper cited the arrest of the Filton Six as part of government’s rationale for the proscription.

Cooper said the government would not tolerate the “UK’s defence enterprise”—Elbit Systems is a major UK commercial defence partner—being attacked or put at risk. Cooper claimed that this had something to do with national security, though it obviously had a lot more to do with protecting the commercial interests of UK-based manufacturers like Elbit Systems UK, Moog, Martin-Baker, Incora, Industrial Gas Springs, and UAV Tactical Systems—Elbit’s suppliers.

The Filton Six were held on lengthy remand under terrorism legislation despite being arrested under unrelated legislation. Before the trial began, their actions were widely alleged by the media to be terror-related. This prejudicial propaganda plainly served the government’s interests.

Commencing the trial in November 2025, Mr Justice Johnson set strict reporting restrictions, but this only applied to defence arguments. The BBC was among the many media outlets to give a full account of the prosecution’s case without any restrictions.

While the trial was underway, Yvette Cooper, representing the government, said that Palestine Action activists—including the Filton Six—had been “involved in violent attacks” and were guilty of “major criminal damage against national security infrastructure.”

Cooper added:

There may be people who are objecting to proscription [of Palestine Action] who don’t know the full nature of this organisation, because of court restrictions on reporting while serious prosecutions are under way. [. . .] But it’s really important that no-one is in any doubt that this is not a non-violent organisation.

Clearly referencing the trial of the Filton Six, Cooper was unconcerned about any restrictions and practically declared the Filton Six guilty. Similarly, a spokesman for the Prime Ministers office reportedly said that Palestine Action activists had conducted “serious attacks [. . .] involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage.” Such prejudicial official statements and comments were widely aired.

It is worth reiterating that the government issued such statements while the trial was in progress and with the so-called reporting restrictions in place. It is also worth re-emphasising that those restriction only withheld the defence’s arguments, and not the prosecution’s, from the public.

The reporting restrictions certainly didn’t have much of an impact on the police. Again, as the trial was being heard by the jury, the police released footage that was shown to the court by the prosecution, including video of Corner striking Sergeant Evans (see Part 1).

This was reported en masse by the mainstream media. The other footage, presented by the defence, that cast the prosecutions narrative into reasonable doubt, was not reported.

Jonathan Cook accurately identified that the government and the mainstream media referenced the alleged reporting restrictions to insinuate that the reasons for proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group “would become clear through the trial.” It seems pretty obvious that the government, working closely with the CPS and the judiciary, planned for the verdict to go its way in order to retrospectively justify its proscription of Palestine Action.

You may wonder what any of this has got to do with justice. The answer is nothing.

Six human beings, British citizens all, were used, and could still be used, by the government for its agenda. They are viewed as disposable. The monstrous idea was to unjustly incarcerate them for life to achieve political goals.

Mercifully, the jury didn’t allow the first attempt to succeed.

Despite the fact that biased reporting restrictions only applied to the defence’s arguments and evidence, regardless of the slew of evidently prejudicial remarks, reports and official government statements, and irrespective of the judge’s efforts to suppress defence evidence and to direct the jury to convict (see Part 1), the ostensible plan failed. The Jury refused to obey.

A judicial review is proceeding to consider if the UK parliament’s decision to proscribe Palestinian Action is lawful in Scotland. A decision is also pending in a similar judicial review in the High Court in London.

Before we discuss the immense significance, for all of us, of the jury’s decision, as Jonathan Cook also observed, we need to appreciate how the government can turn this loss into a victory.

Describing what he calls a potential “win-win” for the government, Cook noted that retrials on the hung verdicts were likely—indeed, the CPS has already stated its intention to seek a retrial of the Filton Six. Then there are the pending trials for the remaining imprisoned activists. The government could still achieve its ambition of creating an apparent justification for its proscription of Palestine Action.

Cook wrote:

If it can get a compliant enough jury to win one of these trials, it will say it was right all along to declare Palestine Action a terrorist organisation. If it doesn’t secure any convictions, it will argue that these failed trials prove that juries need abolishing – an agenda it is already pursuing precisely to stop juries acquitting people the government wants convicted for political reasons.

Establishment mouthpieces and mainstream media propagandists are already making the case for the government. For example, as reported by the Daily Mail, among other propagandist outlets, shadow home secretary Chris Philp thinks:

There is no justification for this violence [the alleged violence of the Filton Six], no matter how strongly someone feels about a cause [trying to stop genocide].

As a matter of law, this is factually wrong. There are lawful justifications for the use of force. Under s.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, “a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime.” Such crimes include genocide and assaults on others.

It is a principle in UK law that we have the lawful right to use a reasonable and appropriate level of force to protect ourselves or others from imminent threats requiring our urgent response. If someone is being attacked with weapons, it is not unreasonable in law to use weapons to defend them.

Philp further ranted:

This verdict risks giving the green light to mob violence in pursuit of a political objective.

The verdict risks no such thing. A sufficient number of the jury recognised that the Filton Six had lawful excuse for the alleged criminal damage. They also appreciated that the force used by some of the Filton Six was reasonable and appropriate, or at least defensible, in the circumstances (see Part 1).

That Philp is among the many Establishment figures who doesn’t like the verdict is not grounds for a retrial. His arguments are baseless, ignorant of the law and not even close to being a fair appraisal of the jury’s decision. It is not surprising that his drivel was given credence in the Mail’s propaganda piece for the government.

Continuing the deplorable conduct of the UK media that occurred before the trial, following the jury’s ruling, the Daily Mail essentially ran the prosecutions failed arguments again. Repeating the technically accurate but highly emotive and purposefully misleading claim that Sergeant Evans suffered a “fractured spine” that was “smashed,” (see Part 1) the Mail’s pair of alleged journalists spewed government propaganda and threw everything into their effort to spread falsehoods.

They forwarded unfounded claims that the verdict “could put [police] officers at risk in the future;” they promoted the ridiculous notion that officers, protecting Elbit Systems UK, fought with the Filton Six to “keep the public safe;” they alleged that the jury’s decision gave rise to “serious concerns” that injuring police officers was suddenly acceptable; they eschewed the humanitarian principle that “people protesting against genocide” are not criminals; they reported only the prosecutions interpretation of the CCTV and body-cam footage, and they falsely stated that “conspiracy theorists” had denied that Sergeant Evans was injured.

What these propagandists did not do is report any of the evidence presented by the defence. Nor did they inform the public about the courts suppression of defence evidence, nor the denial of the defendants statutory defence, nor the widespread prejudicing of the trial by politicians, the media and pro-genocide social media commentators.

An Inconvenient Truth for the Government

It is a fact that lawfully convened juries have the constitutional right and are at liberty to annul government legislation. In legal parlance, this is called jury equity. Let us again consider what defence barrister Rajiv Menon KC said in his closing statement at the trial of the Filton Six:

No judge in any criminal case is allowed to direct a jury to convict any defendant of any criminal charge, whatever the evidence might be. That is the law. [. . .] [t]he facts, and the verdicts you return having considered the facts, are solely for you. [. . .] [N]obody, not even His Lordship, can dictate to you what factual conclusions to reach in this case, nor direct you to convict the defendants of any of the charges they face. [. . .] Indeed, it was as long ago as 1670 that the independence of the jury was definitively established beyond question. [. . .] It will undoubtedly take great courage and independence, I accept, to do so. But the facts ultimately are solely for you. Please don’t forget that.

It is transparent that a sufficient number of the jury did not forget. They exercised their constitutional rights and liberties. Regardless of the directions they were told to obey, they overruled the judge, ignored attempts to prejudice the trial against the defendants and, based on the evidence, acquitted the Six on the charge of aggravated burglary and did not agree to find them guilty on any other charge.

The sovereign power of the people to annul legislation and to base their ruling on their conscience, in light of the evidence they hear, is our constitutional right. We assert our rights through trial by jury. The people, not the government and not the judiciary, are unquestionably sovereign under the rule of law.

Not only is jury equity the constitutional basis for the justice system, trial by jury is the foundation of democracy. No one can have any authority exerted over them by anyone else unless it is “by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

Only a jury of the people has the constitutional authority to adjudicate and apply the law of the land. All branches of government—the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary—are utterly controlled by and subservient to the people’s jury administering the law of the land.

This is an extremely inconvenient truth for a UK government that wants to establish a dictatorship. In his closing remarks, defence barrister Tom Wainwright rhetorically asked the jury to consider this crucial point:

Why is it that those in power want to take away the right to a trial by jury? The jury system gives power to the people.

To give you some indication of just how terrified the government is of the possibility that we might collectively come to realise the constitutional truth and, worse still for the government, assert our lawful rights, consider the treatment of Trudi Warner.

In 2023, she stood outside a UK crown court—where her fellow climate activists were being tried—with a placard informing the jury:

Jurors: You have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.

Just as in the case of the Filton Six, the jury ignored the judge’s directions to convict and acquitted the activists. The jury’s ruling, and Warner’s peaceable and lawful actions, scared the government witless.

The then Attorney General Victoria Prentis was told to commence contempt of court proceedings against Warner. Dismissing the panic-driven prosecution, High Court Justice Saini remarked that it was “fanciful” to charge Warner with contempt. He reminded the government that jury equity is “part of our constitutional landscape.”

The Daily Mail isn’t alone in pumping out propaganda to keep the government’s dictatorial agenda on track. The Telegraph reported the spurious comments of John Woodcock—a.k.a Lord Walney—who, in an absurd statement, babbled:

There should also be an investigation into whether signs placed outside the courtroom constituted jury tampering.

Just as Warner did, the “signs” advised the jury of their constitutional rights and liberty to return a verdict according to their conscience. For Woodcock—a known recipient of Israeli lobby funding who faced allegations of sexual misconduct that have yet to be investigated—to contend that this constituted “jury tampering” is stomach-churning.

Prior to the start of the Filton Six trial, aligning precisely with the intention to establish a “terrorist connection” to the defendants, Woodcock openly stated that Palestine Action protests were “bordering on terrorism.” Alongside Yvette Cooper, the BBC and many others, he clearly attempted to prejudice the trial and perhaps counts among those who should be pursued for genuine jury tampering. That so many are arguing for a retrial in defiance of our constitution and our democratic rights is appalling.

Of course, neither he nor any of the other talking-heads and propagandists who engaged in such reprehensible behaviour will be held accountable. The Establishment serves only itself. Only we, the people, can hold them to account through trial by jury.

If the preposterously named British “justice system” wasn’t hopelessly corrupt, and if the constitution was observed, instead of being obfuscated, there would be no possibility that any civil or criminal trial could be judged by anyone other than a jury of the people. At the start of every trial, civil or criminal, every judge would be required to remind the jury that they have the right to make any evidence-based judgment in accordance with their conscience.

Instead the government is hell-bent on doing away with trial by jury precisely because it is not sovereign and is frenziedly trying to bury the truth. It would be an act self-sacrificial lunacy for us to allow the government to get away with it.

There is nothing to stop us insisting that our constitutional right and liberties are observed. We can and we must demand that we are ruled by law and that we are the only people who judge the application of the law through trial by jury.

The people rule, OK?

Iain Davis is an independent journalist a researcher from the UK. You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. You can claim a free copy of his new book “The Manchester Attack” by subscribing to his newsletter.

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.