This week, it emerged that the UK government provided contact details for British counter-terrorism police and prosecutors to the Israeli embassy during a domestic investigation into protests at an Israeli-owned arms factory.
The disclosure, first reported by The Guardian, has raised urgent concerns over the potential for foreign interference in UK policing and prosecutorial independence.
An email sent on 9 September 2024 from Nicola Smith, head of international law at the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), to Daniela Grudsky Ekstein, Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UK, carried the subject line: “Contacts CPS/SO15”—a reference to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command. Though the content remains redacted, its timing is significant: it was sent just a month after ten Palestine Action activists were arrested under the Terrorism Act following a protest at Elbit Systems’ Bristol site. Another eight were arrested under the same legislation two months later.
While none of those arrested were ultimately charged under terrorism legislation, the episode has fuelled wider allegations that the UK government has blurred the lines between policing and politics in its response to direct action against Israel’s largest arms firm.
Lydia Dagostino, a solicitor representing some of the activists, told The Guardian: “Why, for example, did the Attorney General’s Office provide the contact details for the Crown Prosecution Service, an independent body, to the Israelis? What further exchanges followed and were there discussions about ongoing criminal prosecutions?”
The concerns are far from isolated. A previously unreleased government document obtained by AOAV under a separate FOI request sheds further light on this intertwining of official UK policy and the interests of Elbit Systems. The document summarises a March 2022 meeting between then Home Secretary Priti Patel and Elbit’s UK CEO Martin Fausset. Its stated objective was to “reassure” Elbit that “criminal protest acts against [the company] are taken seriously by Government”.
While noting that police are “operationally independent,” the briefing reveals the Home Office had been “in contact with the police about [Palestine Action]”, effectively bypassing the supposed firewall between law enforcement and political office.
The FOI document also offers a detailed overview of Elbit’s UK footprint—from Watchkeeper UAV production to specialist training aircraft support—highlighting the depth of the UK government’s defence ties with the Israeli firm. Palestine Action has targeted several of these Elbit sites in recent years, leading to multiple arrests and increasing state scrutiny.
Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori has called for an independent investigation into government interference: “There must be full transparency of meetings with the government which reference Palestine Action, and an independent investigation into the validity of prosecutions against us, given the evidence of judicial interference.”
Further adding to concerns, in November 2024, four UN Special Rapporteurs wrote to the UK government about what they termed “the apparently unjustified use” of terrorism legislation against Palestine Action activists. Their letter said that those arrested were detained without access to legal counsel for extended periods, raising possible breaches of international human rights norms.
Despite these alarms, the British government has defended its conduct. A spokesperson told The Guardian: “It has been routine under successive governments for AGO to help embassies get in contact with the relevant authorities purely for purposes of sharing information that could be relevant to a case.”
But for critics, this episode goes far beyond routine diplomacy. It raises troubling questions about the extent to which the UK government is willing to entangle its judicial processes with the foreign policy interests of a powerful arms supplier—and at what cost to the rights of political activists and, potentially, journalists.
“The use of terrorism laws against peaceful protesters is troubling enough,” said Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence. “But when those same processes appear to be influenced by a foreign power with vested interests in the arms trade, it casts a dark shadow over the UK’s commitment to democratic accountability and judicial independence.”
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate