UK Judge Bars Palestine Action Defendants From Explaining Why They Sabotaged F-35 Factory

A British judge overseeing the trial of three Palestine Action activists has warned them that explaining their motives to a jury could trigger a hidden "terrorism connection" enhancement at sentencing, according to hearing transcripts obtained by The Grayzone.

The defendants, dubbed the Teledyne Three, are accused of disabling the clean room at a factory in northern England that manufactures components for F-35 fighter jets. Palestine Action says the October 2024 action shut the clean room down for a substantial period. F-35s built with parts from sites like this have been used by Israel in its air campaigns over Gaza, and, according to the group, in strikes on Iran.

The trial opened August 17. British media has reportedly been barred from covering the pre-trial hearings, a restriction The Grayzone says it is breaching by publishing this account.

A judge's contradiction

According to the transcripts, Judge Kay Driver told both the defense and prosecution that the question of a terrorism sentencing enhancement is "not an issue" and "not part" of the case. Yet the same judge has reportedly forbidden the defendants from raising their motivations at all, barred the jury from hearing about the enhancement, and blocked reporting on the restrictions themselves.

The prosecution, notably, faces its own restriction: it cannot invoke the case's "terrorism connection" without first applying to the court for permission. The arrangement leaves defendants unable to explain themselves, a jury unable to weigh the full context, and journalists unable to describe any of it to the public, a structure critics describe as a coercive bind that all but guarantees convictions regardless of what the facts show.

Not the first time

This is not an isolated case. In June, four members of a separate group known as the Filton Six were convicted and sentenced to five to eight years as terrorists after a judge, according to The Grayzone's earlier reporting, imposed similarly severe limits on their defense. Jurors in that case were reportedly never told the defendants could be sentenced as terrorists even for lesser convictions. Amnesty International called the trial a "dangerous" attack on the right to protest.

A separate July trial of Palestine Action activists at the same Teledyne site, overseen by the same judge, produced an account from a trial observer describing Driver as displaying "overt contempt" for the group and appearing "bored and irritated" when defense lawyers argued the activists should be allowed to explain their motives. Those characterizations rest on a single observer's account and have not been independently verified.

The terrorism label under legal strain

The UK Home Office designated Palestine Action a "terrorist entity" in July 2025, after a February attempt to do so was found unlawful by the courts. That July designation remains under appeal. Even so, prosecutors and judges are proceeding as though the label is settled, using it, or the threat of it, to shape what juries are permitted to know.

The pattern across these three cases points to a legal strategy that stretches Britain's terrorism statute to cover property damage at a defense contractor's factory, while insulating the underlying justification, opposition to arming Israel's air force, from ever reaching a jury. Occupation Watch will continue to follow the Teledyne Three trial and the appeal of Palestine Action's terrorism designation.