A judge is expected to sentence four Palestine Action activists as ‘terrorists’ tomorrow, despite the activists not being convicted as such.
Judge Jeremy Johnson has indicated he may add a ‘terrorist connection’ to the charges of Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona (Ellie) Kamio and Fatema Rajwani under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020. This is despite the jury convicting the Palestine Action four of criminal damage in their retrial.
The conviction follows the four activists’ direct action to damage computers and drones, and spray red paint across the walls and floor of an Elbit Systems factory in Filton, near Bristol on 6 August 2024. Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest arms firm.
On 5 May, the jury convicted them without the knowledge that a terror link could be later imposed by the presiding judge, Mr Justice Johnson during sentencing. This is due to a long list of reporting restrictions on the British press, which the judge used to block coverage that the defendants had been barred from speaking about their motivations for joining Palestine Action.
The gagging orders issued by judge Johnson also prevented the defendants from providing information to the jury on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, and Elbit Systems’ role in it.
Media were also banned by Johnson from reporting that they could be sentenced as terrorists. The restrictions were only lifted on 12 May – a week after the conviction.
Should the judge sentence the ‘Filton Four’ – as they are now known – as terrorists, they could serve far longer prison sentences, and face severe limitations on their lives upon release.
On 5 June, Defend Our Juries (DOJ) filed a complaint against Mr Justice Johnson with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Signed by over 3,000 people, including lawyers, law professors, retired police officers and magistrates, the complaint alleges that decisions taken by the judge “amount to a pattern of exceptional, biased and discriminatory conduct”. Judge Johnson has since refused to recuse himself from the case.
The DOJ complaint also cites Johnson’s decision to treat the defendants’ desire to prevent Israel’s mass killings of Palestinian civilians as an aggravating – rather than mitigating – feature.
According to the judge, the intention to prevent the deaths of Palestinian civilians is what brings their actions within the scope of the Terrorism Act, as an attempt to “influence the Israeli government”.
Additionally, the DOJ complaint accuses Mr Justice Johnson of acting “vindictively” in remanding Head, Kamio and Rajwani to custody after their retrial. Three of the four have served eighteen months on remand, with Corner having been incarcerated for 21 months.
Commenting, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Kirsten Bayes said:
“For generations, at Greenham Common, Aldermaston, Fairford and others, the peace movement has taken action against military logistics and supply chains, involving breaching security and causing damage. Keir Starmer himself was part of the legal team defending the ‘Fairford Five’, who carried out direct action at RAF Fairford during the Iraq war.
“The ‘Filton Four’ case bears close parallels to the ‘Raytheon Nine’ where the defendants were acquitted of criminal damage at the Raytheon factory in Derry in 2006. In this case, the activists attempted to stop weaponry being sold to Israel for use against Lebanon. Their motivations for allegedly damaging office equipment were treated as mitigating rather than an aggravating factor – as they should be.
“In the Filton raids, it was abundantly clear that neither the Israeli nor UK government were the target, as they were and remain far beyond reasonable influence. Instead, Palestine Action activists sought to disrupt the means of production: just as one would deny a carving knife to a murderer, these four activists sought to prevent their nation from supplying murder weapons to the genocidal Israeli government. In doing so, the Filton Four upheld an ethical duty to prevent harm, and only did so when it was clear that all ordinary options had been exhausted.
“Sentencing the Filton Four as ‘terrorists’ when they were not convicted as such, and when the evidence that might have supported that conclusion was not even allowed to be heard in court, would not only be unprecedented but grotesque and dystopian. It will always be the case that those taking non-violent direct action to prevent complicity in genocide are acting in service of humanity.”
“It must be said that it is a dire reflection of the UK’s police and judiciary that the Filton Four will likely be sentenced as ‘terrorists’, weeks after the Met Police refused to even investigate a single one of the 2,000+ British nationals now known to have served in Israel’s genocidal army.”
ENDS
—
Note to editors:
- Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) is a UK-based NGO, founded in 1974, that campaigns to end the international arms trade. Its focus is primarily on UK arms exports, and in particular on exports to those countries and regions where they are most likely to contribute to conflict, repression, corruption, and other serious harm. CAAT engages in grassroots activism and protest, public awareness raising, political lobbying on its own and in conjunction with other organisations, and media and social media outreach. This is supported by a strong and rigorous research programme that has gained CAAT a reputation as one of the most reliable sources of information on UK arms exports and related issues.
- While CAAT does not plan, organise, or carry out direct action, it has frequently supported individuals and groups who have, in the absence of government action, taken it upon themselves to engage in direct action against the arms trade, involving the damage or destruction of military equipment which they had clear grounds to believe were to be supplied to nations – such as Indonesia in the 1990s, or Israel now – that were committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, or indeed genocide, for which such equipment might well be employed. CAAT believes that direct action seeking to prevent the supply of arms to those who use them these most serious crimes can be morally justifiable when regular political action has failed.
