The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) warned Yvette Cooper that publishing an article justifying the proscription of Palestine Action might risk prejudicing the criminal trial of activists from the group – but she “went ahead anyway”.
Background to the Case
Earlier this month, Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani were found guilty of causing criminal damage during a raid on the Elbit Systems factory in Bristol in 2024. Lawyers representing the defendants attempted to stop the trial, arguing that a column written by the then-home secretary had “deprived” their clients of “the presumption of innocence”.
The Article in Question
In the article, published in The Observer last August, Ms Cooper claimed that counterterrorism intelligence showed the organisation passed the tests to be proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act with “disturbing information” about future attacks. She wrote: “Some may think it is a regular protest group known for occasional stunts. But that is not the extent of its past activities.”
Pre-Trial Ruling
A previously unreportable pre-trial ruling reveals that the CPS had advised Ms Cooper prior to publishing that going ahead with the article might prejudice proceedings. Mr Justice Johnson set out how the CPS were made aware of the proposed publication and had “advised about the risk of prejudice”. He wrote: “It is to be taken that the (then) Home Secretary was specifically advised that going ahead with the article might prejudice these proceedings, and that she went ahead anyway”.
Defence Arguments
Lawyers making an abuse of process argument for the defendants claimed that the article was an “egregious example of contemptuous reporting which directly interferes with the court process”. They further raised concerns over how the public had been told by a senior government official that the conduct of the defendants has a terrorist connection. The defence lawyers argued the “cumulative impact of the proscription of Palestine Action, the attendant publicity and the prejudicial public statements of the home secretary have deprived the defendants of the presumption of innocence”.
Judge's Decision
The judge, however, ruled that it had not been shown that the defendants would not receive a fair trial. Mr Justice Johnson said: “The decision to proscribe Palestine Action was highly controversial and required public justification. It is unsurprising that the Government sought publicly to justify the decision that it had taken and that it relied, in general terms (without naming individuals), on Palestine Actions’ activities, including the activities that have resulted in these proceedings. In doing so, the home secretary ran a risk of causing some prejudice to these proceedings, but that is different from deliberately flouting a reporting restriction order.”
Official Response
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The judge concluded that the article did not prevent a fair trial taking place. The trial found four Palestine Action members guilty of criminal damage, and one was also found guilty of grievous bodily harm.”
Broader Context
Palestine Action was banned as a terrorist organisation under a Government proscription order in July last year. But the controversial move was declared unlawful by the High Court in February this year. The four pro-Palestinian activists used a prison van to smash into shutters at the Israel-linked defence firm, their trial at Woolwich Crown Court previously heard. Once inside, the activists set about destroying property inside the factory, before clashing with security guards and police who tried to stop the raid. They will be sentenced at the same court on June 12. Corner was also convicted of a further count of causing grievous bodily harm. Two other activists, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin, were cleared of criminal damage.
