UK: Activists challenge terrorism-linked sentencing

Four Palestine Action activists could potentially face terrorism-related sentencing despite not being convicted of terrorism offences, as campaigners seek the removal of the judge overseeing the case ahead of a crucial court hearing, according to Middle East Eye on 5 June.

A recusal application concerning Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson is due to be heard on 9 June after campaign group Defend Our Juries (DOJ) accused the judge of apparent bias during proceedings involving activists convicted over action taken against an Elbit Systems factory near Bristol, England.

The case has attracted significant media attention after Johnson ruled in March 2025 that there appeared to be a “terrorist connection” to the activists’ actions, citing their alleged intention to influence the Israeli government by restricting access to weapons. Campaigners argue the ruling could expose the defendants to terrorism-related sentencing provisions despite them not being convicted of terrorism offences- potentially setting a significant legal precedent.

Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Samuel Corner and Fatema Rajwani are due to be sentenced on 12 June following their convictions for criminal offences linked to a raid on the Elbit Systems site in August 2024. Supporters of the defendants argue the case raises wider concerns about the treatment of political protest within the British legal system.

Defend Our Juries has announced plans to file a formal complaint with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, alleging that Johnson’s conduct throughout the proceedings demonstrated a lack of impartiality. The complaint has reportedly received more than 3,000 signatures from legal professionals, academics, retired police officers, magistrates and members of the public.

Critics have focused on the terrorism connection ruling, arguing it introduces an unprecedented legal situation in which protesters could face sentencing under terrorism-related provisions without being convicted of terrorism offences or intentional acts of violence.

The complaint also raises concerns over Johnson’s handling of defence proceedings, including his referral of lead defence barrister Rajiv Menon KC for alleged contempt of court. Supporters of the activists argue the decision disrupted the defence’s ability to present its case effectively during the trial process.

In May, a jury at Woolwich Crown Court found four defendants guilty of criminal damage in connection with the action at the Elbit Systems facility. Two other defendants were acquitted, while several additional charges either resulted in acquittals or no verdict being reached. Campaigners have further criticised the decision to remand the convicted activists into custody pending sentencing, noting that some had already spent up to 18 months on remand before trial.

The outcome of next week’s recusal hearing could be one of major significance ahead of the scheduled sentencing hearing on 12 June, which Defend Our Juries plans to coincide with a mass demonstration outside Woolwich Crown Court. Campaigners say it will be watched closely by legal commentators and civil liberties groups across the UK.

Middle East Eye, maghrebi.org