Bradford, England – Jury members at Bradford Crown Court were discharged after failing to reach a unanimous decision regarding the case of four pro-Palestine protesters accused of causing significant damage, nearly £600,000, to the Teledyne factory in Shipley. The defendants, identified as Julian Gao, Ruby Hamill, Daniel Jones, and Sayed Shah, had been arrested following their demonstration which targeted the factory known for producing electronics for the aerospace and defense sectors.
The elaborate protest involved the defendants allegedly breaking into the factory grounds using an angle-grinder to cut through security fences. They were equipped with sledgehammers, crowbars, ladders, and flags, and ultimately ascended to the factory’s roof which they reportedly vandalized. Jurors were shown both CCTV and drone footage capturing these events, depicting the group as they smashed windows and roof tiles dressed in red boiler suits.
The court heard that the date of the protest, April 2, was chosen by the activists to draw attention to the conflict in Gaza. The demonstration extended over 14 hours, during which police were called to the scene. Responding officers were informed by the demonstrators that their actions were a form of protest against the factory’s role in manufacturing components used in military equipment, parts of which, according to prosecutors, end up in conflict zones including Gaza.
Gerald Hendron, the prosecuting attorney, provided the court with a detailed account of the damages which included both internal and external destruction, amounting to a substantially high repair bill for Teledyne Space and Defence Ltd., a noted supplier for both the British Army and NATO, along with other international clients such as Ukraine and Israel.
The implications of the protest and the ensuing legal battle underscore a larger societal debate involving the ethics of manufacturing and supplying military hardware used in global conflicts, highlighting a contentious intersection of commerce, policy, and humanitarian concerns.
At the conclusion of the trial, which spanned several days and involved rigorous deliberation by the jury, Judge Sophie McKone was compelled to discharge the jury following their inability to reach a verdict even after about seven hours of additional deliberation over two days.
The defendants, who have all been released on bail, face a possible re-trial scheduled for February 2026. The outcome of this case is expected to resonate beyond the courtroom, potentially influencing future demonstrations and the ongoing discussions around the defense industry’s role in international conflicts.
As the community and stakeholders await further developments, the case remains a poignant example of the complex interplay between activism, legal boundaries, and the global arms trade. The forthcoming proceedings will likely provide further insights into these multifaceted issues and perhaps set a significant precedent for similar cases in the future.