Four UN special rapporteurs have written to the UK government to raise concerns about the misuse of counter-terrorism measures to target Palestine Action (PA) activists and impose harsher detention conditions on them.
The letter concerns the “Filton 18” – activists who are currently held in remand after being arrested on terrorism charges in connection with an action in August 2024, when six activists drove a modified van into the research and development hub of UK-based Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, in Filton, Bristol.
The activists dismantled weapons, including quadcopter drone models deployed by Israel in its war on Gaza, causing £1m ($1.24m) in damage.
The six activists were arrested at the scene for violent disorder and assault and were initially detained for 24 hours at police stations in Bristol under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, with their detentions extended by 12 hours under the same act.
When the detention orders expired, the activists were arrested for a different offence under the Terrorism Act 2006 – preparation of an act of terrorism or assistance to commit terrorism – allowing their detention to be prolonged for another week.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Under the Terrorism Act, police can detain protesters without charge for up to seven days, with the possibility of extending detention for an additional 14 days.
A further 12 activists were rounded up in connection with the action by counter-terrorism police in two waves of raids – all were arrested under section five of the Terrorism Act. The letter noted that one of the arrestees, Ian Sanders, was arrested at gunpoint.
During the raids, activists’ homes and property were damaged, while some of their loved ones were subjected to police violence.
Activist Leona Kamio’s mother, Emma Kamio, was arrested under the Terrorism Act and held incommunicado for five days. Kamio reported that she was denied a solicitor for the first two days of her detention and that she was held in a dirty cell with the lights left on throughout the night.
‘Terrorist connection’
Despite now facing non-terror related charges, including aggravated burglary and criminal damage, the 18 are being held under “counter-terror” powers until their trial in November.
The period of their detention is above the UK’s standard pre-trial custody time limits for the crown court, which is 182 days.
While the defendants were not charged under the Terrorism Act, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said in a press release that it would argue in court that the offences have a “terrorist connection”, which could aggravate their sentences.
In Britain, Palestine and climate activists face an ‘unprecedented’ wave of criminalisation
Read More »
The rapporteurs welcomed the fact that the terrorism charges had been dropped, but raised concerns about the initial “unjustified use” of counter-terrorism laws to target the activists.
It said that property damage did not meet the international threshold for terrorism and there was no “credible connection” between the activists’ conduct and terrorism.
It added that the use of “ordinary criminal law would strike a more appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of national security”.
The rapporteurs also expressed alarm at the detention conditions faced by the activists, reporting that some faced daily interrogations during detention, causing “significant deterioration in their mental health”.
They also reported that activists were denied contact with the outside world for a significant period, with some barred from access to legal advice for the first 36 hours of their detention.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) stipulates that detainees are permitted an initial phone call, although this right may be delayed under the Terrorism Act.
The rapporteurs said that incommunicado detention could constitute “enforced disappearance”.
‘Restricted status’
The rapporteurs noted that the initial terrorism charges and “terrorist connection” on their offences meant the activists were classified as high-security prisoners with “restricted status” – meaning their mail correspondence is monitored and restricted.
A Palestine Action spokesperson previously told Middle East Eye that some female detainees were being held under “restricted status for women”, an “additional security measure” which can be imposed on female prisoners “whose escape could present a risk of serious harm to the public”.
UK police charge co-founder of Palestine Action under Terrorism Act
Read More »
According to the letter, “non-association orders” have been imposed on activists held at HMP Bronzefield, resulting in restrictions on family visits and barring them from attending court hearings.
Palestine Action has also reported that some of the detainees were transferred to different prisons without their families being notified.
On 19 December, Palestine Action posted on X that Leona Kamio’s family were told not to visit her for Christmas as she had been moved from HMS Bronzefield, but staff could not tell them where she had been transferred to.
The letter also reported that some activists have faced barriers to practising religious or cultural rights, with one activist, Fatima Rajwani, reporting that her headscarf was forcibly removed during her arrest.
Other activists reportedly had trouble accessing medication in detention.
One detainee, Zoe Rogers, reported that her medication was lost during her transfer from the police station to the remand facility.
The letter noted that “the significant delay in replacing the medication caused her painful withdrawal symptoms,” adding that repeated delays to the dispensing of the medication had prompted her to stop taking it altogether.
‘The right to protest is not absolute’
The UN panel demanded that the UK government “explain the factual and legal grounds justifying the alleged arrest and detention of the activists under counter-terrorism laws”.
It further asked whether the definition of terrorism in UK law will be amended to “exclude acts of advocacy, dissent, protest or industrial action”, and to outline the measures taken to safeguard activists’ rights in detention and their right to a fair trial.
‘Neither the right to freedom of expression nor the right to protest is absolute’
– British government
In response, the UK government said that, beyond the publicly available information on the circumstances of the Filton 18’s arrests and detentions, “it would not be appropriate for the UK government to comment further, particularly when criminal proceedings are ongoing”.
It added that the police, CPS and courts are all independent of the government and that “it is vital that these institutions are able to carry out their duties, and make decisions, free from political influence, including the influence of international governmental organisations”.
In response to the UN experts’ question regarding reform of counter-terrorism laws, the government spokesperson said: “The UK has a comprehensive counter-terrorism legislative framework which strikes the right balance between protecting national security and individual freedoms.
“However…neither the right to freedom of expression nor the right to protest is absolute,” it added.
