Palestine Action prisoners may be sentenced as “terrorists”

"Terror connection" claimed by judge could have lifetime consequences.

Carlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Samuel Corner and Fatema Zainab Rajwani. (Filton 24 Defence Committee)

Recently on The Electronic Intifada Livestream I gave an update on the Filton 24 prisoners, the first six of whom were subjected to a retrial earlier that week.

The Filton 6 were accused of criminal damage, after proudly (in their own words) acting to smash up Israeli quadcopter drones at an Elbit factory in Filton near Bristol in the west of England.

Of those six, Palestine Action campaigners Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Samuel Corner and Fatema Zainab Rajwani were found guilty of criminal damage. But Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin were acquitted.

All six had in February already been acquitted of aggravated burglary – the most serious charge, which could have led to life sentences.

During my livestream update last week, I alluded to court restrictions on the press which prohibited me and other British journalists from reporting on certain details. (Watch the full segment from last week in the video below.)

Since then, those restrictions have been lifted by the court.

I can now report that judge Jeremy Johnson secretly ruled that, despite not being charged with “terrorism,” there was a “terrorist connection” with the six, due to the activists attempting to “influence” the Israeli government.

Campaigning for the restriction of weapons sales to Israel is therefore being treated as “terrorism” by a senior British judge.

This supposed “terror connection” is highly likely to lead to punitive jail terms when it comes to sentencing on 12 June.

Yet it was illegal for the British press to report this highly salient fact until Tuesday last week. While US independent outlet The Grayzone did report the matter, it is highly likely that none of the jury knew they were convicting the four as “terrorists.”

Treating direct action campaigners as “terrorists” in this way will also have long-term repercussions which will stretch far into the future even after their release from jail.

Rather than serving 40 percent of their sentences in jail, as is the standard practice, as “terrorists” they would have to serve at least two thirds in jail, and likely even the whole sentence.

Early release would require parole board approval. They would be expected to rescind their political views – in other words, to recant on their opposition to genocide.

Even after release, the Filton prisoners would be listed as terrorists for life.

For 10 or 15 years after release, they would be subjected to conditions such as registering any new device, email address or even personal relationship with the police.

Any failure to do so would risk reimprisonment.

Yet if they were being merely sentenced for criminal damage – as the jury was strongly led to believe – they would have been released already on time served.

The four have already spent 18 months in prison on remand.

The Filton 24 defense committee is calling on its supporters to mobilize on 12 June outside Woolwich Crown Court.

Filton lawyer’s contempt victory

Another update worth mentioning since my livestream segment is that Rajiv Menon, one of the Filton 6 lawyers, has won a significant legal victory against contempt proceedings that had been initiated against him. Again, these were initially held in secret behind the view of press-reporting restrictions.

On Monday last week the Court of Appeal ruled that judge Johnson had wrongly initiated proceedings against Menon, and that he had no jurisdiction to make a direct reference of the lawyer to the High Court.

Menon’s law firm said it was “delighted” at the ruling and that it hoped this would be the end of the matter.

Garden Court Chambers called the proceedings “unprecedented” saying they were “extremely concerned about the chilling effect” it could have by “seeking to criminalize barristers for their representation of their clients. This should never be repeated.”

It seems quite clear that the intention of judge Johnson was to make it harder for Menon to defend his clients – at exactly the most crucial time they needed legal defense.

First published by The Electronic Intifada.