12/06/2026
A popular backlash cornered the High Court into declaring the proscription of Palestine Action unlawful â a decision the government is appealing.
That has led to another unprecedented situation: police are still arresting people for holding placards in support of the group, despite the courts ruling that the basis for such arrests is unlawful.
The law has never looked more of an ass.
Which is why Starmerâs government is pinning its hopes on the judge in the so-called Filton trial riding to the rescue â making an example of four activists who targeted an Israeli factory in the UK making killer drones for use in Gaza.
This coming Friday, Judge Jeremy Johnson will pass sentence on the activists, who were convicted by a jury of the relatively minor offence of criminal damage in the second of two trials the judge so carefully rigged.
Judge Johnson has not been shy about showing where his loyalties lie. Not to the law, but to the British security state.
Which should hardly come as a surprise, given his background.
Judge Johnson made it to the bench after years serving as the most favoured barrister of the âsecret stateâ, representing the intelligence services, the ministry of defence and the police. His working environment of choice as a lawyer was behind-closed-doors prosecutions held out of view of the public or proper legal scrutiny.
There were many extraordinary, anomalous moments in the two trials. But perhaps the most glaring was Judge Johnsonâs efforts to get the main defence barrister in the first trial, Rajiv Menon KC, jailed for contempt of court simply for noting to the jury in his summing up speech that they had a hundreds-of-years-old right in law to acquit.
Judge Johnsonâs behaviour was so unprecedented and certain to have a chilling effect on the ability of defence barristers to represent their clients â the Filton defendants dismissed their barristers from summing up in their second trial to avoid their lawyers facing prison for doing their job and defending them â that the Court of Appeal had no choice but to overrule Judge Johnsonâs contempt proceedings against Menon.
Former British ambassador Craig Murray has rightly observed: âMany people will surely conclude, it is Judge Johnson who should be in jail."
But even with the convictions for criminal damage secured under these rigged conditions, Judge Johnson is still in a position to cause more harm to the rule of law in Fridayâs sentencing hearing.
He has reserved to himself the right to sentence the four anti-genocide activists not just for the criminal damage charge they were convicted of after his rigged trial, but â once again in an unprecedented move â to treat those criminal convictions as if they were for terrorism offences.
That means he can impose a longer sentence, more draconian prison conditions and more onerous, life-long parole conditions after their release.
The jury knew none of this when they were considering whether to convict. Judge Johnson placed a gagging order on his decision during the trial which meant the information was withheld from the jury and could not be reported until after the verdict. The gag was broken only by foreign media and Zarah Sultana, who used her parliamentary privilege to reveal Judge Johnsonâs government-friendly, anti-justice machinations.
In yet another unprecedented feature to the trial, this will be the first time in British history that someone accused of criminal damage is sentenced as a terrorist. Judges were only given these extraordinary powers in a highly controversial amendment in 2021 to counter-terrorism legislation.
Judge Johnsonâs logic for taking advantage of his extra powers in this case is quite extraordinary too. He argues that, in destroying Elbitâs killer drones, the activists were seeking to âinfluenceâ the Israeli government to change its policy in Gaza â that is, to stop committing a genocide.
Putting pressure on governments is what terrorists try to do, he argues, so this must mean the anti-genocide activists are terrorists.
Opposition to the genocide, in Judge Johnsonâs view, has to be treated as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.
It is all the more astounding that Judge Johnson is using this argument when he refused to allow the jury to hear any evidence of the activistsâ larger political motivations: that they wanted to stop British complicity in Israelâs genocide by targeting a factory that made the drones for use in that genocide.
Remember, all this is happening as Starmerâs government makes unprecedented moves to end many jury trials in Britain, leaving us to the mercy of judges like Jeremy Johnson.
As Defend Our Juries notes, the government is looking to create âan extraordinary and deeply authoritarian precedent, allowing countless more protesters to be tried for an ordinary offence, but secretly sentenced as terrorists, without juries knowing this when they convictâ.
This is an extract from my latest article. Read the rest here: https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/legal-profession-revolt-against-the
