The United Nations (UN) has formally intervened in the case of the Palestine Action ‘Filton 18‘ – currently on remand over their action at a UK-based Israel-supplying arms factory owned by Elbit Systems. The UN letter, while polite, does not pull any punches – and exposes the misuse of counter-terror laws and blatant state-sanctioned mistreatment of the activists.
However, the UK government has responded – and it hides behind bureaucracy while bordering on contemptuous.
Palestine Action: the Filton 18 target Elbit
In August 2024 Palestine Action activists disrupted Israeli weapons production at the Filton, Bristol research hub of Elbit Systems – Israel’s largest arms firm.
This brand new £35m research and development hub of Israel’s biggest weapons firm opened in June 2023, and was attended by the UK-Israeli Ambassador Hotevely, and Elbit’s CEO Bezhalel Machlis – who has frequently boasted of the company’s central role in Israel’s military, during the ongoing Gaza genocide.
An initial seven people were detained under police abuse of ‘Counter Terror’ powers. More police raids and arrests followed in the months since, most recently in November. A total of 18 people now arrested, detained, and held under ‘Counter Terror’ powers – despite being charged with criminal charges – before a trial in November 2025.
Many had their homes and property damaged and some of their families and loved ones were also subjected to police violence, while conditions for those inside prison include arbitrary and repressive restrictions.
Though initially charged under terrorism statutes, the activists were later prosecuted for standard criminal offenses like criminal damage and aggravated burglary.
However, it is the state’s initial use of counter-terror laws, and its treatment of the Filton 18, that the UN is concerned about.
Overarching concerns from the UN
You can read the full letter here. It is from:
- Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
- Gabriella Citroni, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
- Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
- Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
The UN panel has identified several key areas of concern:
Misapplication of Counter-Terrorism Laws: Arrests and pre-trial detentions under counter-terrorism legislation lacked credible links to terrorism, raising concerns about overbroad definitions in UK law. Actions involving property damage, while unlawful, do not meet the international threshold for terrorism, which includes intent to cause serious harm or compel governments through intimidation. On this, the UN letter specifically states:
The information received suggests that the UK police have exercised significant powers under counter-terrorism legislation despite the absence of a credible connection between the activists’ conduct to terrorism as properly defined, and in circumstances where provisions of the ordinary criminal law would strike a more appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of national security.
In this respect, it is welcome that the accused are not to be prosecuted for any terrorism offences, properly reflecting the character of their acts as ordinary criminal offences. However, we are concerned that the activists were arrested on terrorism charges at an earlier stage and that counter-terrorism detention extended detention powers were used in that connection.
Detention Conditions: Activists faced restricted communication with family and legal counsel. High-security designations due to alleged “terrorist connections” limited their access to cultural and religious practices, exacerbating psychological and physical challenges during remand.
Procedural Violations: Prolonged incommunicado detention and delayed access to legal representation contravened international human rights standards, including Articles 9 and 19 of the ICCPR
Impact on Freedom of Expression: Using counter-terrorism laws against political dissent could deter legitimate protest activities in a democratic society, infringing on freedoms of expression and assembly.
Demanding answers
The UN panel then goes onto to demand answers from the UK government. Specifically it has asked it to:
Provide any additional information and/or comment(s) you may have on the above-mentioned allegations
Explain the factual and legal grounds justifying the alleged arrest and detention of the activists under counter-terrorism laws. Please explain the reason why, and at what period of the activists’ detention, the CPS decided to downgrade the charges to ordinary offences. Please also detail the basis for the CPS’ submission that the offences have a “terrorist connection”.
Explain whether the definition of terrorism in UK law will be amended to exclude acts of advocacy, dissent, protest, or industrial action in a democratic society where they are no intended to cause death or serious injury with a terrorist purpose.
Outline the measures taken to safeguard the activists’ procedural rights in detention and their right to a fair trial, including their right to access legal representation immediately after their arrest and to ensure that their families are promptly notified of their detention, including any transfers between detention facilities.
Explain the measures taken to ensure the activists’ access to family visits, medication and health care in detention, and to protect their cultural and religious rights, and detail how these measures are compatible with international human rights standards. Please indicate whether their restrictive high security conditions in detention will be lifted.
Now, the UK government has responded.
The UK government: deflecting the issue with bureaucracy
You can read the full response here. It has addressed each of the UN’s questions. However, the response demonstrates several shortcomings in transparency and accountability.
Firstly, the repeated emphasis on the inability to comment due to ongoing legal proceedings, while procedurally valid, limits meaningful engagement with the substantive allegations. This reliance on legal constraints to withhold information appears to prioritise procedural safety over addressing international concerns regarding human rights practices.
For example, the UK government specifically states:
Beyond this publicly available information, it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to comment further, particularly when criminal proceedings are ongoing. This principle applies to all criminal investigations and trials and helps ensure the integrity of those processes.
However, the Filton 18 have not been charged under counter-terror laws. Therefore, it seems obtuse at best to argue that this element of the situation cannot be discussed.
Additionally, the document extensively defends the use of counter-terrorism laws, arguing they are applied judiciously and independently of government influence. However, it fails to sufficiently address criticisms about the broad and potentially ambiguous definition of terrorism under UK law, particularly its application to acts of advocacy, dissent, or protest.
Robust – or serving the state?
The response leans heavily on previous affirmations of the law’s robustness by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, but it does not adequately explain how these laws are regularly reviewed to prevent misuse against activists.
The government’s explanation regarding procedural safeguards, such as the provision of legal representation, family notifications, and access to healthcare and religious rights, is thorough but overly reliant on citing existing frameworks rather than presenting evidence of their effective implementation. This approach gives the impression of a defensive rather than proactive stance on addressing potential rights violations in detention.
Furthermore, the document highlights the UK Government’s insistence on the independence of the police, Crown Prosecution Service, and judiciary. While this independence is critical, the failure to engage substantively with the activists’ specific allegations raises concerns about the adequacy of procedural protections, particularly for politically sensitive cases.
Of course, what we do know is that former Labour Party MP, John Woodcock (Lord Walney) has heavily influenced the state in terms of applying counter-terror laws to legitimate activism.
Lord Walney: pulling the strings?
As the Canary previously wrote, Just Stop Oil activists all received shocking prison sentences only months after the disgraced John ‘Lord Walney’ Woodcock, paid oil and arms industry lobbyist, called for groups who oppose his clients’ interests, to be silenced and jailed. He also floated the idea that groups like Palestine Action should be labelled as terrorists.
Prior to Walney’s report in May 2024, jail sentences for peaceful protest in Britain remained extremely unusual.
In 2020, Boris Johnson appointed him to the House of Lords, and gave him the role of ‘Independent Adviser on Political Violence and Disruption’.
He used that role to obtain the following paid positions:
- Chair of the Purpose Defence Coalition, members of which include Leonardo, one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers, with “extensive links” to Israel’s military.
- Adviser to lobbyist Rud Pederson, clients of which include the oil and gas giant, Glencore
- Adviser to the Purpose Business Coalition, members of which include fossil fuel giant BP.
The terms of his engagement required him to disclose any conflicts of interest directly to the Home Office, but it is unclear whether he did so.
In May he published a report, falsely presented to the public and to parliament as ‘independent’. This called for groups such as Palestine Action and Just Stop Oil to be treated as organised criminals. He also suggested that jury acquittals in the trials of such cases were a ‘problem’ that needed to be addressed.
The surprise is not that Walney acts in his clients’ interests, but rather that the Labour government continues to present him to the public as ‘independent’, encouraging judges to act on his recommendations. He remains in post, despite a previous commitment by the Home Office to review his role by the end of October 2024.
Palestine Action: a microcosm of a global problem
The thin end of this wedge is the UN’s intervention over the Filton 18. This is because their situation is a microcosm of what is happening in both the UK, but also around the Global North in terms of increasingly authoritarian, right-wing governments cracking down on people that are disrupting the quickly-faltering corporate capitalist system.
Back in the UK, though, Palestine Action, its activists, and their supporters, must now wait for the UN to consider and then respond to the UK government’s response.
The UN’s intervention is welcome – but it remains to be seen whether or not the UK government will listen or even respond appropriately, and review the Filton 18’s cases.
Featured image via Martin Pope
