What medical evidence was presented at the Filton trial regarding injuries to police and protesters?

1. Sergeant Kate Evans: spinal fractures on CT and prosecution emphasis

The prosecution relied on medical imaging when laying out the alleged seriousness of the injuries to police sergeant Kate Evans: a CT scan showed a fracture of the right third transverse process of the lumbar spine, a probable fracture of the right second transverse process, and a displaced fracture of the right fourth transverse process — the jury were told these injuries were plainly caused during the incident, and the judge and counsel referenced that scan during submissions ^{[1] [4]}. The prosecution framed that evidence as central to questions of intent and self‑defence, with defence counsel asking jurors to weigh the medical facts alongside video and testimony ^[4]. Reporting notes the CT was delayed but entered into the agreed facts told to the jury ^[1].

2. Security guard Nigel Shaw: a stapled cut, dental damage and superficial wounds

Medical evidence about Elbit security guard Nigel Shaw was read into the record: he sustained a 4cm shallow cut that was stapled at hospital with no infection on removal, several superficial lacerations, and a tooth cap knocked off with dental records noting fillings requiring attention — this was presented as part of the agreed factual sequence of injuries arising from the Filton action ^[2]. Those injuries were summarised by prosecution witnesses and included in the timeline of events the jury received ^[2].

3. Protesters’ medical reports and body‑worn video corroboration

Defendants produced medical records and accounts of harm incurred during arrests and confrontations: Ellie Kamio’s notes detailed bruises, scratches, wounds consistent with taser deployment and a possible finger fracture, and body‑worn camera footage shown to the jury depicted her being tasered and in pain, which defence counsel used to corroborate the medical entries ^[3]. Other defence statements and agreed facts acknowledged medical reports among the documents provided to the jury, including medical evidence read out concerning Fatema Rajwani and others ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Conflicting narratives about cause and context of injuries

While the prosecution treated the medical findings — especially Sergeant Evans’ spinal fractures — as injuries caused in the course of the defendants’ actions ^[1], defence teams and sympathetic reporting emphasised video evidence and medical notes that suggested protesters had also been struck or tasered and that security staff may have used force first, citing bodycam and factory CCTV that the defence argued showed guards assaulting activists ^{[5] [6]}. Independent observers flagged that selected clips were circulated publicly and cautioned about context, and campaigning outlets argued political pressure had framed the medical evidence before trial ^{[7] [8]}.

5. What the record does — and does not — show

The trial record, as reported, documents specific clinical findings (the CT description for Sergeant Evans, the stapled scalp wound and dental damage for Nigel Shaw, and lists of bruises/taser wounds/dental and finger concerns for at least one defendant) and confirms those reports were part of the agreed facts and jury material ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. The available reporting does not include full medical records, expert witness transcripts in detail, or a complete forensic timeline reconciling every injury with a single causal moment; therefore, while the court heard and the jury saw named imaging and treatment findings, public reportage limits a definitive, forensic attribution of each specific injury beyond how counsel presented them in court ^{[1] [4]}.

6. How the medical evidence affected outcomes and unresolved questions

Medical evidence clearly shaped the most serious allegation in the trial — grievous bodily harm to Sergeant Evans — a charge on which the jury did not reach a verdict, underscoring that imaging and injury descriptions were necessary but not dispositive ^{[9] [10]}. At the same time, the presence of medical notes corroborating protesters’ accounts of taser use and bodily harm informed defence narratives and public debate; competing interpretations of who caused which injuries remained central to why some counts were acquitted and why others were left undecided ^{[5] [7]}.