Court states that violence was never intended as part of break-in plan

A 29-year-old woman charged in connection with a break-in at a Bristol-based Elbit Systems facility has told the court that using violence was not part of their plan. Charlotte Head is one of six people accused of carrying out a forceful intrusion into the UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence company in the early hours of 6 August 2024.

She faces charges of aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder alongside Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31. All defendants deny any wrongdoing.

While giving evidence at Woolwich Crown Court, Ms Head said the group had agreed not to inflict harm. "We didn't want anyone to be hurt," she stated. "Those limits were clearly set."

The prosecution claimed the group sought to cause maximum damage while wearing red jumpsuits during the break-in. Security staff attempting to intervene were verbally abused, struck with sledgehammers, whipped, and sprayed with a foam extinguisher. Police were called, and Sgt Kate Evans, responding to the incident, was hit twice on her back by Mr Corner, resulting in a fractured spine. He denies causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Asked about the injuries sustained, Ms Head emphasized that despite her opposition to Elbit's defence technology, "nobody should be hurt in that way." When questioned if she would have participated had violence been anticipated, she replied, "No, it was never part of the plan."

Ms Head described the intention as making themselves appear too inconvenient for security to intervene rather than frightening them. "We thought we would have hours inside the building. We even packed sandwiches, not expecting anyone to come in," she told the jury.

She admitted to driving a van that crashed through the factory fence and was used to ram the main loading bay door. She also acknowledged causing property damage inside the building but denied physically whipping any guards, stating she only waved a whip to deter them.

Ms Head, who works for a domestic abuse charity, became involved in pro-Palestine protests in London. She spent nights at a camp outside Hackney Town Hall but felt her concerns were ignored. "I didn't want to look back and think I didn't do what was right," she said. She added that she believes violent protest is morally wrong and ineffective as a tactic.

The trial is ongoing.

Author’s Analysis: Context of the Bristol Elbit Facility Break-In

The testimony of Charlotte Head at Woolwich Crown Court provides insight into the mindset of the group accused of the Bristol break-in. According to her account, the defendants intended to disrupt operations rather than cause physical harm. Ms Head emphasized that the use of violence was explicitly ruled out, reflecting a deliberate boundary set by the group.

Despite these claims, evidence presented by the prosecution indicates that security personnel were physically attacked and property was significantly damaged. Sgt Kate Evans sustained a fractured spine, highlighting a contrast between the defendants’ stated intentions and the actual outcomes. The court will need to assess the credibility of Ms Head’s statements alongside the documented injuries and damage.

Ms Head’s involvement in pro-Palestine activism and work with a domestic abuse charity contextualizes her stated ethical opposition to violence. However, the incident demonstrates how planned protest actions can escalate unexpectedly, raising questions about accountability and risk management in activist operations. The trial continues, with further evidence expected to clarify the events and intentions of all defendants.

Sources:

• Violence 'never part' of break-in plan, court told