Pro-Palestine activists appear in court over attack on Israeli arms factory in Germany

Original article by Kate Connolly in Berlin

Five pro-Palestinian activists have appeared in court over an attack on an Israeli arms company in Germany, charged with causing approximately €1m of damage.

Prosecutors say the defendants, aged 25 to 40, trespassed and yelled pro-Palestinian statements as they destroyed office equipment, sensitive measuring devices and smashed windows at a site linked to Elbit Systems in the southern city of Ulm.

The activists published videos online in which they claimed responsibility for the attack, which they said was aimed at drawing attention to Germany’s support for Israel and its military actions in Gaza.

The trial opening on Monday was described as chaotic by those present. The defence lawyers left the courtroom after being refused permission to sit with the defendants, who were separated from the public gallery by a wall of thick security glass.

After a two-hour adjournment at Stuttgart’s regional court, the lawyers took their seats in the defendants’ chairs and refused the judge’s order to move to their own seats.

The hearing was subsequently adjourned, and is expected to resume in a week’s time.

In a statement sent out after the adjournment, the defendants’ lawyers said they had filed a motion for recusal against the presiding judge, accusing the court of “an unacceptable violation of the defendants’ right to a fair trial”.

The Berlin-based activists, who are British, Irish, German and Spanish citizens, have been held in pre-trial detention in separate prisons since 8 September, when they are alleged to have mounted the attack and called the police.

The group, known as the Ulm 5, have been charged with trespass, destruction of property and membership of a criminal organisation – Palestine Action Germany – under section 129 of the German criminal code.

The section 129 charge means authorities consider the accused a threat to society, allowing them to deny bail. Families of the defendants say they have been locked up for up to 23 hours a day and had access to visits, books, phone calls and mail restricted. If found guilty, they face up to five years in prison.

Speaking on behalf of all the defendants ahead of the trial, Benjamin Düsberg, a lawyer for Daniel Tatlow-Devally, 32, from Dublin, said he believed the German state was trying to make an example of the five, none of whom has a previous conviction.

The attack on the weapons factory was an action in “defence of others” in trying to obstruct the movement of arms to Israel, he said.

Düsberg, one of eight defence lawyers, said: “We intend to use the proceedings to essentially turn the tables. We want to show that it’s not our clients who should be on the hook, but rather the Elbit bosses, who continued delivering weapons even during the genocide.”

Elbit Systems is the most important land-based weapons supplier to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). It has been approached for comment on the trial.

Referring to section 32 of the German criminal code, Düsberg said: “Our central argument will be that the actions of our clients there – namely the destruction of laboratory equipment and office equipment – were justified under the grounds of emergency assistance.”

Under this clause, an otherwise unlawful act can be justified if there is no other way to avert imminent harm or attack, he said.

Germany is the second biggest supplier of arms to Israel, after the US. The defence team will argue that as soon as the international court of justice ruled in 2024 that the claim of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza was “plausible”, Berlin should have stopped all deliveries. Israel rejected the ICJ accusation as “outrageous and false”.

Mimi Tatlow-Golden, the mother of Tatlow-Devally, a philosophy graduate, said she feared the case had a political dimension and the five would “face a show trial” as the German state sought to send a message about the potential penalties of such actions.

She said: “The friends carried out only property damage, at a specific location and with the aim to end a genocide. They did not hide their identities and presented themselves for arrest. They represent no harm to the public. Using section 129 to keep them in detention … before the trial can, in my view, only be viewed as serving a political purpose.”

Matthias Schuster, another of the defence lawyers, said: “Our clients are not dangerous but [authorities] believe they should be seen as such to justify the strict custody conditions in which they have been held.”

Nicky Robertson, the mother of Zo Hailu, 25, who is being held in a prison in Bühl, Baden-Württemberg, said the “extreme treatment” the group had received felt “like a disproportionate response for property damage”.

Hailu, a British citizen, was stripped completely naked on arrest and given a nappy and left like that for six hours, Robertson said. “These are people who love the environment and children, who are caring, creative, sporty, decent team players. They’re not a danger to society. Quite the opposite,” she added.

Rosie Tricks, whose 25-year-old sibling, Crow Tricks, another British citizen, is being held at the maximum-security Stuttgart-Stammheim prison, said visits had been restricted to two hours a month. “It’s lovely to see them, but knowing Crow as a sociable, bubbly, fun person, the light of our family, it’s really hard to see them in this position,” said Rosie of Crow. “Their health has definitely suffered. They look OK but inside there’s a lot of anxiety and worry.”

The other defendants are Vi Kovarbasic, a 29-year-old German, and Leandra Rollo, a 40-year-old Spanish citizen from Argentina. The five have continued to be denied bail, even after the six-month limit of pre-trial detention passed.

A spokesperson for the Stuttgart-Stammheim court said: “The code of criminal procedure allows, under certain conditions, for the extension of pre-trial detention.”

In a special detention review last month, Stuttgart’s higher regional court “examined these conditions … and ordered the continuation of pre-trial detention for all defendants”, basing its decision “on the existence of a risk of flight, which would not be sufficiently mitigated even by the posting of bail”.

The trial is expected to run until the end of July.