27 May 2026
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/05/palestine-action-scottish-judicial-review-stitch-up-incoming/

The proscription of Palestine Action was sold to MPs and the media on the basis
of a deliberate campaign of lies, fronted by Yvette Cooper, then Home Secretary,
and Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Both have deep
commitment to Israel. Cooper is owned by the Israel lobby.

What is worse, they then attempted to reinforce these lies by fitting up young
activists with false charges and corrupting all principles of justice in an
effort to obtain false convictions. This was brought home to me most forcefully
in examining thousands of pages of documents released to me by the Home Office
as disclosure in the Scottish judicial review of the legality of the
proscription of Palestine Action.

I am not allowed to reveal these thousands of pages to you, even though they
have already been redacted, with large sections blacked out, and in some
instances gisted, or given in precis, removing "sensitive" information.

But I shall reveal one single paragraph of one single document because I think
it is overwhelmingly in the public interest to do so. It is an essential
illustration of the appalling behaviour which our Israeli-controlled
Establishment has been exhibiting throughout this attack on Palestine Action -
an organisation which, I would remind you, is trying to prevent the provision of
arms to a genocide.



That screenshot paragraph is from the Proscription Advisory Group, prepared by
the Counter Terrorism Police, recommending proscription. It is part of a
narrative they seek to build of an "escalating pattern of violence". The claim
is in essence that Palestine Action has moved from violence against property to
violence against people.

The problem is, it is not true.

In the Filton trial the attempts to convict activists of violence against people
- the aggravated burglary and violent disorder charges - all failed before a
jury. There were twelve charges between aggravated burglary and violent disorder
- and twelve acquittals. In the other incident referenced in the above paragraph
- the Sandwich action - the charges of personal violence have all quietly been
dropped.

So let us go through the extremely alarming list of serious charges involving
violence that were given in that essential paragraph, from the internal Home
Office documents arguing for proscription. And let us mark up the actual truth.

* Aggravated Burglary - no convictions
* Violent Disorder - no convictions
* Administering a Noxious Substance - no convictions
* Threats to Kill - no convictions
* Actual Bodily Harm - no convictions
* Grievous Bodily Harm - no convictions
* Participating in Activities of an Organised Crime Group - no convictions

The only footnote to this is that there is one single conviction of GBH, but the
jury specifically found not guilty of intent, in relation to the melee that
developed at Filton after the security guards attacked the activists.

This is an astonishing, lengthy list of fabrication - offences in which the jury
found as a matter of fact against the Crown. Non-existent offences were listed
by the Police to recommend the proscription.

The proscription was based on an entire litany of offences which never happened.

But much worse than this is the attempt to enforce convictions under false
pretences in the Filton trial. The catalogue of how this was done is well known
now.

Judge Johnson ruled that the defendants were not permitted to refer to their
motives. He ruled that the jury may not be informed of their absolute right to
acquit. He attempted to have the leading defence barrister, Rajiv Menon KC,
prosecuted for contempt of court for informing the jury of their rights. He
ruled that terms including "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" may not be used in
court. He ordered that the notebooks and other writings of the accused be
redacted to withhold from the jury any information related to Elbit's supply of
weapons to Israel. He enforced the concealment from the jury of the nature of
the weapons and equipment that had been damaged. He granted anonymity to senior
Elbit staff and admitted their evidence without the defence being able to
cross-examine. He ruled that the trial had not been prejudiced by the Secretary
of State and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stating the offences as
fact throughout national media. He allowed the release to the media of highly
edited and selective prosecution video footage during the trial which gave a
false impression of events. He permitted the admission of Metropolitan Police
video evidence which they had given over to Elbit's sole custody for an entire
year. He ruled that the jury must not be told of his stated intention to
consider adding terrorist aggravation to any convictions - which adds 150% to
time served in jail.

That is an astonishing list of nefarious actions by Judge Johnson. Read it
again. Many people will surely conclude, it is Judge Johnson who should be in
jail.

Despite all of Johnson's attempts to rig the trial, despite the state trying the
defendants twice when it failed to achieve convictions the first time, the Crown
failed to attain its convictions on Aggravated Burglary, Violent Disorder and
GBH with Intent.

But my God, they tried. How they tried!

Yvette Cooper specifically relied on the specific police litany of lies in her
article for the Observer to promote the proscription, where she wrote:
Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for - and promoted on its website -
attacks that have seen those allegedly involved subsequently charged with
violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal
damage and aggravated burglary. Charges that include, in the assessment of the
independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.

The "independent" Crown Prosecution Service is of course a joke, the
independence of both the prosecutor and of judges like Johnson being a polite
fiction of the British Establishment. The executive does not issue direct orders
to judges like Johnson nor to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They don't
have to issue direct orders. Those people are only in their positions because
they know what is expected of them.

The one thing they cannot reliably control is a jury, however much they may try
to manipulate the information available to them. The charges in the Filton trial
of aggravated burglary (which means going equipped with a weapon intending to
use it against a person), of violent disorder and of GBH with Intent were always
massive, politically motivated overcharging.

They were never likely to be got through a jury - given the total lack of
evidence for them - no matter how much Judge Johnson attempted to manipulate the
trial.

Yvette Cooper was prepared to disregard legal advice that her article would
prejudice the trial, safe in the knowledge that Johnson would only ever bring
contempt of court charges against the defence and not against the State.

Our hearing in the Scottish Court of Session tomorrow will hear our motion that
the proscription in Scotland should be suspended pending the Scottish judicial
review, because in the meantime hundreds of people are having their civil
liberties restricted and facing possible arrest, and scores are facing charges
for terrorist offences merely for exercising their right of free speech.

The UK government is opposing with a counter motion to sist (postpone) the
entire Scottish judicial review until all English proceedings are concluded,
including a probable eventual Supreme Court decision. Their key argument is that
it is constitutionally undesirable for English and Scottish courts to reach
opposing decisions in a matter of "national security".

That Scottish courts should respect English decisions they present not as
colonialism, but as "Comity".

They state that the constitutional argument is so important that the Advocate
General herself, Catherine Smith KC, will represent the UK government in
person. Indeed this hearing was delayed by two weeks to fit her diary.

Their argument is of course disingenuous. They are not seeking to postpone the
Scottish hearing, they are seeking to stop it altogether. If it is
constitutionally unacceptable to reach a different decision from the English
court, then what would be the point of a Scottish judicial review at any stage?

Furthermore they are entirely illogical because the status quo is that the
government has lost to Palestine Action in England at the High Court. It is the
government which is appealing there. So if they really believed in "comity" they
would drop the government case in Scotland to achieve the same position as
England!

Most of the argument we have submitted to court consists of analysis of the
effects of the proscription and the impact of suspending it.

The government by contrast have not addressed the proscription at all. They are
depending entirely on the constitutional argument that the court should not be
hearing the case. But these exact arguments were already dismissed by the court
at the permission stage. They do not become any more compelling just because a
UK government minister is stating them.

Why is the government so confident it will win on the constitutional point and
does not need to address the proscription?



I fear the appearance of the minister is evidence of an Establishment
stitch-up. My hackles rise particularly at the remarkable fact that, while the
permission hearing was livestreamed and in Court No 1, this much more important
hearing is not being livestreamed and is relegated to court No 6, with a much
smaller public gallery. If the case is, as the government itself states, of such
constitutional importance that the minister must appear in person, why is it
being hidden from the public gaze?

Unfortunately I can't think of any answers to that question which are not deeply
troubling.

We desperately need more money to continue this legal case. Each stage of
hearing like this costs about £30,000 and the eventual judicial review will cost
much more.

Again please contribute if you can but do not contribute if it causes you
difficulty. If you know people who are able to afford to help and likely to be
sympathetic, please do contact them and ask their assistance. We are trying to
keep a lot of very good people out of prison.

You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the
lawyers, or through this blog.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/scottish-challenge-to-proscription/