Yvette Cooper, then home secretary, decided to pen a newspaper column justifying the proscription of Palestine Action, even though the Crown Prosecution Service had warned her it could prejudice the criminal proceedings against six activists from the group. The column, published in the Observer on 17 August, referred to charges including a "terrorism connection" and mentioned violence, intimidation, and "disturbing information" about future attacks - all while a trial was pending for a 2024 break-in at an Israeli arms manufacturer's factory near Bristol.
Defence lawyers sought to halt the proceedings for alleged abuse of process, calling the article "an egregious example of contemptuous reporting which directly interferes with the court process" and "dripping in innuendo." In a pre-trial ruling last November, Mr Justice Johnson noted that Cooper had been "specifically advised that going ahead with the article might prejudice these proceedings, and that she went ahead anyway." However, he dismissed the abuse-of-process application, reasoning that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was "highly controversial and required public justification" and that Cooper "ran a risk of causing some prejudice" but didn't deliberately flout a reporting restriction order.
After a retrial, four defendants - Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21 - were convicted last week for criminal damage in relation to the raid on Elbit Systems UK. The jury was never told about the terrorism connection allegation, which could have led to harsher sentences. Defence lawyers also cited other allegedly prejudicial government statements, including a Times report that Home Office officials claimed Iran could be funding Palestine Action - a claim the Home Office later distanced itself from, with Johnson describing it as "misleading." A third ground for abuse of process alleged "collusion between the government and the Israeli state, Elbit Systems and the pro-Israeli lobby," but Johnson ruled there was no political interference in the charging decision. The Home Office, for its part, stressed that "the judge concluded that the article did not prevent a fair trial taking place."