Urgent #Filton Trial Update â Genocide-Enabling Lawfareâs Chilling Effects: #Zionism is corrupting UK Justice & Perverting itâs Course!
Urgent Filton Trial Update | Craig Murray | Craigâs Substack | 14 MAY 2026
While the Court of Appeal has now stopped the High Court contempt of court action against Rajiv Menon KC for defending his client, this is purely on procedural grounds. They ruled that Judge Johnson had to go via the Attorney General to the High Court, not direct. It is now referred back to Johnson who can use the Attorney General route.
Given that Johnson is a vicious authoritarian, a former lawyer for the security services who did everything possible to rig the Filton trial against the defendants, and that the Attorney General âLordâ Helmer is a vicious pro-genocidal zionist who was Israelâs go-to lawyer on war crimes charges in the UK, this contempt of court action may well not be over.
In addition to barring the use of the terms genocide or ethnic cleansing at trial, barring the defence of necessity to stop war crimes, barring the defendants from explaining the motive of their actions, and barring the jury from being informed of their absolute legal right to acquit, Judge Johnson also barred the jury from being told that he intended to add the terrorism aggravation on sentencing.
This is incredibly important. The norm is in England that you serve 40% of a jail sentence in prison and 60% on parole. If the terrorism aggravation is applied, you serve 100% in jail. So it is the difference between two years in prison and five years in prison. This was hidden from the jury.
A terrorism aggravation will also lead to debanking, severe travel restrictions and very probably loss of career.
The Filton action against the Elbit weapons factory preceded the proscription of Palestine Action, but a judge can add a terrorism aggravation to any offence. (You may recall that in Scotland a young woman is facing charges of âdangerous driving aggravated by terrorismâ for an action against the Leonardo weapons factory).
Violence against property can be construed as terrorism in the UK if the objective is to influence government. Extraordinarily, Judge Johnson has indicated that he believes that the actions against the Israeli weapons factories may be intended to influence the policy of the government of Israel. He will announce his final decision at sentencing but he has already told the court (but not the jury) that is his thinking.
The activists have already spent 16 months in jail on remand. In any precedent for a first time criminal damage conviction, including the sentences of Palestine Action and climate activists, they would be extremely unlikely to be given sentences of more than three years in jail. With the standard 40% tariff, that means they would not have further prison time but some remaining time on parole.
Therefore Judge Johnsonâs decision to keep them in prison pending sentencing next month appears to indicate he is intending to impose abnormally long sentences and the terrorist aggravation.
This is astonishing for two reasons:
Firstly, the notion that those damaging Israeli weapons did so in the hope of changing Netanyahuâs mind about destroying Gaza â as opposed to destroying some of his weapons supply â is plainly nonsensical.
The second is that if they were trying to change Netanyahuâs mind, they were trying to influence him against committing Genocide.
Which only a hardwired zionist nutter like Judge Johnson can consider a bad thing.
The legal fight against the proscription of Palestine Action continues. We are back in court on 27 May in Edinburgh with a motion to suspend the proscription in Scotland.
______
source
______
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
The High Court ruled in February 2026 that the governmentâs decision to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act was unlawful. While the judges acknowledged some actions met the statutory threshold, proscribing the group breached rights of freedom of expression and assembly. The ban remains active pending a government appeal. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Legal Challenge Timeline and Details
- The High Court Ruling: On February 13, 2026, the Divisional Court in R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department upheld two grounds of the legal challenge. The court found the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own proscription policy and that the ban was a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
_ - The Interveners: The legal fight included major human rights interventions from Amnesty International UK and Liberty, alongside the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism. These groups argued proscription criminalized legitimate meetings and represented an overbroad use of counter-terrorism powers against direct-action protests.
_ - Appeal Proceedings: Following the High Court judgment R (Ammori) v SSHD, the Home Secretary was granted permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal has continued to review the case.
_ - Current Status: Because the government is appealing the High Court ruling, the proscription order technically remains in place while the legal process plays out. It continues to be illegal to be a member of, or invite support for, the organization until a final resolution is reached. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
LEGISLATION.GOV.UK:-
What does the legislation do?
4.1 This Order adds âPalestine Actionâ, âManiacs Murder Cultâ and âRussian Imperial Movementâ, including relevant aliases, to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (âthe Actâ). Organisations listed in that schedule are proscribed for the purposes of the Act. Any organisation operating under the same name as a listed organisation is also proscribed unless there is a note to the contrary, as there is for Palestine Action. The listing of Palestine Action refers only to the organisation based in the United Kingdom.
The British Government controversially proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist group on 5 July 2025 under the UKâs Terrorism Act 2000, a month after members of the network vandalised Royal Air Force aircraft at Brize Norton.[14]
What is the chilling effect on free protest?
A chilling effect is the phenomenon in which an individual, organization, or group is prevented from exercising their legal rights, leading to self-censorship in the form of the restraint of information sharing or the abstinence from certain activities.
In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of rights by the threat of legal sanction.[3] A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill.[4] A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). âChillingâ in this context normally implies an undesirable slowing.
Direct action, when used as a form of protest, generally falls outside legally protected âpeaceful demonstrationâ. While UK law safeguards the fundamental right to protest, this is not absolute. Direct action frequently results in criminal prosecution for offenses like public nuisance, aggravated trespass, and criminal damage. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Legal Frameworks
Direct action often collides with specific legislation governing public order, infrastructure, and private property:
- Public Order Act 2023: This legislation criminalises disruptive protest tactics. It introduced specific offenses for âlocking-onâ (attaching oneself to other people, objects, or buildings to cause disruption) and tunnelling. It also targets the obstruction of major transport works and the interference with key national infrastructure.
_ - Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022: This act expanded police powers to manage protests. It allows police to impose conditions (such as start and finish times, or maximum noise levels) on static and marching protests, and makes it an offense to intentionally or recklessly cause a public nuisance.
_ - Aggravated Trespass: Under Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it is a criminal offense to trespass on land and do anything intended to intimidate, obstruct, or disrupt lawful activity. [1, 2, 3, 5]
Defences and Human Rights
Activists often attempt to rely on Articles 10 (Freedom of Expression) and 11 (Freedom of Assembly and Association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which are enshrined in UK law. However, the courts have consistently ruled that these rights do not protect actions that involve violence, intentional property damage, or significant disruption to the public. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Potential Consequences
Individuals participating in direct action can face several legal repercussions:
- Criminal Conviction: Depending on the offense, this can result in substantial fines and custodial sentences.
_ - Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs): Introduced in the Public Order Act 2023, these civil orders can be imposed on individuals to restrict their movements, associations, and online activities to prevent future disruption.
_ - Civil Injunctions: Private companies and public bodies (such as National Highways or local councils) frequently obtain civil injunctions against named individuals or âpersons unknown.â Breaching an injunction is considered contempt of court and can lead to prison time or unlimited fines. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Palestine Action: the Improper and Political Use of Counterterror Legislation against a Direct Action Group in the UK | International Law Blog | 8 JULY 2025
Camille Marquis Bissonnette is a Doctor in Law and Law professor at UniversitĂ© du QuĂ©bec en Outaouais (Canada). She specializes in international law, with a particular interest in human rights, international security and migration. Her research focuses on how the law fails to protect and how it can protect better the most vulnerable, marginalized or excluded groups or persons. She is the author of the book âLe terme terrorisme et ses incidences sur la protection des personnes en droit internationalâ (Bruylant, 2024).
Introduction
On July 2nd, 2025, an activist movement, Palestine Action, has been labeled as a terrorist group by the UK Parliament (by 385 votes to 26). On Saturday July 5th, its ban has come into force, thus criminalizing virtually any action in relation to the group or its previous actions. The present blog post aims to analyze this proscription in light of international human rights law. We will first examine the legal framework on terrorism in the UK, particularly what such a ban entails and precedents for banning activist groups in recent UK history. We will then turn to its impact on human rights protection in the UK.
What happened?
Letâs begin with a short overview of the events leading to the ban of Palestine Action in the UK. Palestine Action is a UK-based movement engaged in direct action that has been active in the UK for 5 years. Direct action âis a category of activism in which participants act directly, ignoring established (or institutionalized) political and social procedures [âŠ] [such as] strikes, boycotts, sabotage, blockades, tree-sits, Black Bloc, obtaining secret footage, lock-onâsâ. This strategy includes civil disobedience and may therefore violate existing laws. It may involve violence against property.
Palestine Action, according to the website of the organization, is «committed to ending global participation in Israelâs genocidal and apartheid regime» and its actions regularly involve degrading buildings, weapons, structures and vehicles in the UK that are associated or designed to be used by Israel in or against Palestine, including, for example, Israeli arms companies and foreign arms companies supplying Israeli military. The apparent turning point for the UK government was Palestine Actionâs direct action at the Royal Air Force (RAF) base in the city of Brize Norton, the most important RAF base, on June 20. In line with Palestine Actionâs strategy, militants sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Voyager aircrafts that serve to refuel Israeli military jets. A few days after the attack, on June 23, Yvette Cooper, the UK Home Secretary, declared to the Parliament her intention to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization. On June 30, Cooper laid a proscription order before Parliament listing Palestine Action, together with two white supremacist organizations, Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement, under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As the order was adopted by the Parliament on July 2 and the High Court refused to deliver an interim order to suspend the ban until full judicial review, it has entered into force last Saturday, July 5th.
What Does this Labeling Involve?
The Terrorism Act 2000, in its article 1, defines terrorism as the âuse or threat of actionâ which:
âa)involves serious violence against a person, b)involves serious damage to property, (c)endangers a personâs life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic systemâ,
when it is âdesigned to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the publicâ and when it is made âfor the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological causeâ.
The first element â the list of acts- is notably broad since it is open-ended. It is also not limited to conduct that endangers human life, and included âserious damage to propertyâ. In light of Palestine Actionâs strategy, it is this aspect of the definition that most likely allowed the Home Secretary to make a connection between Palestine Action and terrorism.
Section 3 of Terrorism Act 2000, invoked by Cooper, allows the Secretary of State to label an organisation as terrorist âonly if [s]he believes that it is concerned in terrorismâ (s.3(4)), where âconcerned in terrorismâ includes, but is not limited to, committing, participating, preparing, promoting or encouraging terrorism (s.3(5)). This means that an organization need not commit acts deemed as terrorism itself to be labelled as terrorist. Indeed, not only is the definition of terrorism very broad, but the connection required between the organisation and a terrorist activity may also be quite indirect.
Despite this low threshold, under the very broad and strong counterterrorism legislation in the UK, the listing of a group as a lot of immediate consequences. Indeed, the UK has a very long list of very broadly formulated crimes related to such listing, including : membership (2000 Terrorism Act s.11), support (2000 Terrorism Act, s.12), the wearing of an item of clothing or the publication of images of an item of clothing (2000 Terrorism Act, s.13), the expression of support for a proscribed organization (Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act (CTBSA) 2019, s.1), encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorism publications (CTBSA 2019, s.5). Concretely, since Palestine Action was banned, it became unlawful â from the day the proscription order entered into force â to be a member, to express support or even to consult the movementâs webpage or express support in relation to its ban. In the UK, the most severe of these infractions carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Is Labeling Activist Groups as Terrorist a Common Practice?
Labeling activist groups as terrorist organisations is not uncommon, in both democratic and authoritarian States. In 2002, Myanmar designated two non-violent Rohingya dissident groups as terrorist organizations, while the following year, four Uyghur groups have encountered the same fate in China (Marquis Bissonnette, 2024 at 156, 158). In the United States, eight Muslim charities engaged in humanitarian aid designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the Treasury Department after 9/11 (Howell, 2006, at 127). These groups had different kinds of action and the rationale for banning varied, but these examples demonstrate that terrorist labeling of civil society groups are not unimaginable or unprecedented, even in Western democracies.
In the UK, while no local activist groups has been added to the official terrorist list under counterterrorism legislation before, the environmental groups Greepeace and Extinction Rebellion â that both also use direct action, as well as the animal protection group Peta, were added, together with some of their activists, to a list of groups involved in terrorism in a counterterrorism training brochure in 2000. That guide, produced by the Counter-Terrorism Police, was part of the UK counterterror strategy Prevent. Thus, it is not new for UKâs authorities to associate activist groups to the âterroristâ label, although the present occurrence of listing carries far more concrete and far-reaching consequences.
Is this decision problematic in terms of human rights?
Since States have never agreed on an international definition of terrorism, they also have never drawn a clear line between illegal acts that should or should not by criminalized, nor between criminal acts that should or should not be labeled as terrorist. Nonetheless, international human rights law offers guidelines that are sufficiently clear to assess whether a counterterrorism legislation, or its application, goes too far. Here, the impacts of banning Palestine Action on the freedoms of expression and opinion, assembly, association, and the right to participate in political life is concerning, both as regards to the banning of the organization itself and to the criminalization of legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms that flows from it. While these freedoms are not absolute and may be limited by States on legitimate grounds, any limitation must be proportionate.
The banning of an organization is the most serious infringement of the freedom of association and should not be undertaken lightly. On the procedural level, according to international standards, such a ban should be pronounced by an independent and impartial judicial body (rather than by the executive or legislative power).
As to the freedom of assembly, in its General Comment 37, the UN Human Rights Committee has determined that peaceful civil disobedience and direct action are protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (s.21). Individuals involved in acts of civil disobedience or direct action are generally prepared to face the legal, and criminal, consequences of their acts. According to the Guidelines of the freedom of assembly of the Venice Commission, however, in the case of civil disobedience, arrests and penalties must be proportional to the offences. They moreover state that â[u]nder no circumstances should a protestor engaged in civil disobedience be punished more severely than a person who committed the identical offense without expressive intent.â The use of Section 3 of 2000 Terrorism Act against Palestine Action does not meet these standard.
On July 1st, five UN Special Rapporteurs and independent experts issued a joint statement urging the UK ânot to misuse terrorism laws against protest groups Palestine Actionâ and highlighting its potential impacts of human rights and freedoms in the UK. They rightly underlined that â[m]ere property damage, without endangering life, is not sufficiently serious to qualify as terrorismâ and that â[p]rotest actions that are not genuinely âterroristâ, but which involve alleged property damage, should be properly investigated as ordinary crimes or other security offencesâ.
â
To concludeâŠ
Events concerning Palestine Action have unfolded in the past three weeks. The saga is still not over, since the proscription order will be challenged in front of the tribunals : an hearing is already planned for July 21. Counterterror legislation, has shown, since September 2001, to be a slippery tool when it comes to human rights protection. This is especially problematic given the lack of a universally agreed definition of terrorism -as well as terrorist crimes- in international law, which leaves full discretion to States in their definition and application.
Flowing from the ban, on July 5th (the day the ban came into force), already, 29 persons were arrested for protesting in support of Palestine Action, on suspicion of terrorist offences codified in Terrorist Act 2000. Regardless of oneâs labeling of the conduct of Israel in Palestine right now -which is both peripherical to our analysis and very likely central to the UK governmentâs political motivation to ban Palestine Action â one should be concerned by the UKâs recourse to the most exceptional and strong legislation against a movement engaged in direct action. One should also be alert to what it reveals about the Stateâs commitment to protecting civil liberties when it comes to crucial public debates â however polarized they are.
Picture credit: PA © PA
#freedom #Gaza #genocide #Israel #justice #Liberty #Palestine #politics
Cabine13 đ
Denis Olivier | Photography
Protyus A. Gendher
LilMikeSF
Dave Volek
Dining and Cooking
daniel
| truthaholics
EAS Watcher
El Mundo