Activist's Trial Sparks Suffragette Comparison Amid UK Defense Firm Break-In
Published 8 January 2026
Highlights
- Charlotte Head, 29, and five others face charges of aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder following a protest at Elbit Systems' UK site on August 6, 2024.
- Head's barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, compared her activism to the suffragettes, emphasizing her dedication and the historical mischaracterization of such figures.
- Prosecutors allege the group used sledgehammers to damage equipment, but the defendants deny using them as weapons.
- The trial at Woolwich Crown Court also involves a charge against Samuel Corner for causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer.
- The defense argues the protest was non-violent, aligning with Palestine Action's history of direct action.
A high-profile trial at Woolwich Crown Court has captured attention as Charlotte Head, 29, and five other activists face serious charges following a protest at the Elbit Systems factory near Bristol. The group, associated with Palestine Action, is accused of aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and violent disorder during the August 6, 2024, incident. The protest targeted the UK site of the Israeli defense firm, which has been criticized for its role in military operations.
Suffragette Comparison in Defense
In a striking defense, barrister Rajiv Menon KC likened Head to the suffragettes, highlighting her commitment to activism. Menon argued that, like the suffragettes, Head is a "remarkable woman" challenging the status quo. He emphasized that historical figures often faced mischaracterization, drawing parallels between Head's actions and the militant campaign for women's suffrage. "The suffragettes were remarkable women from all walks of life united in their hope, their despair, their defiance, and their dedication," Menon stated, underscoring the relevance of this comparison.
Allegations and Defense
Prosecutors allege that Head and her co-defendants meticulously planned the protest, using sledgehammers to damage equipment, drones, and computers at the Elbit Systems site. However, the defendants deny using the tools as weapons. Samuel Corner, one of the accused, faces an additional charge of causing grievous bodily harm to police officer Kate Evans, who sustained a fractured spine. Corner's defense claims he acted in self-defense after being sprayed with Pava spray, a point contested by prosecutor Deanna Heer KC, who described his actions as "completely unreasonable."
Activism and Legal Context
The trial has highlighted the tension between activism and legal boundaries. Menon described Elbit Systems as a "dreadful company" involved in the deaths of Palestinians, arguing that the protest was consistent with Palestine Action's history of non-violent direct action. The defense maintains that any violence was unplanned, challenging the prosecution's narrative of a violent disorder.
What this might mean
As the trial progresses, the outcome could have significant implications for both the defendants and the broader activist community. A conviction could deter similar protests, while an acquittal might embolden activists challenging defense firms. The case also raises questions about the legal limits of protest and the role of historical comparisons in modern legal defenses. Observers will be watching closely to see how the court navigates these complex issues, potentially setting a precedent for future activism-related cases.
