https://anotherangryvoice.substack.com/p/the-rogue-judge-destroying-fair-justice
Jeremy Johnson has ripped up all kinds of legal precedents in order to punish four of the Filton 6 Palestine protesters for "terrorism" offences, setting dangerous new legal precedents
Another Angry Voice
Jun 13, 2026

Jeremy Johnson has sentenced four of the Filton 6 Palestine Action protesters to massive prison sentences for "terrorism", despite having deliberately kept the terrorism charges secret from the media, the public, and even the jury in the trial.

The jury thought that they were finding the defendants guilty of criminal damage, and one case of causing grievous bodily harm without intent, only for Johnson to reveal the fact that he’d kept the "terrorism enhancement" secret for the entire process.

This is the first time in UK legal history that defendants have been sentenced on charges that were kept secret from the jury, and it’s the first time in UK legal history that a "terrorism designation" has been added to sentences in a case where none of the defendants were convicted of causing intentional violence.

It doesn’t matter what your opinion on direct action against weapons facilities is, it should be absolutely obvious that keeping charges secret from defendants; the public; and the jury undermines open justice, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

How can anyone believe that justice has been done, when the jury didn’t even know what they were convicting the defendants of?

How can anyone facing trial have faith that they’re being charged with what the prosecution say they’re being charged with, if the judge can just add more stuff once the verdict is reached?

How can anyone feel comfortable with the idea of politically motivated judges hiding information from the jury?

The deliberately hidden "terrorism designation" isn’t the only deeply concerning behaviour from this rogue judge.

He also banned the defendants from explaining their motivations for their actions (opposition to Israel’s ongoing genocide and war crimes against Palestinian civilians); and he also abused the law to accuse the defendants’ lawyer of "contempt of court" for telling the jury about their legally established right to "acquit on conscience".

The right to acquit on conscience has existed since 1670 when a judge tried to bully the jury into finding two Quakers guilty of unlawful assembly, but Johnson wants to abolish this ancient British legal right, by banning defendants from explaining their motivations, and seeking retribution against their lawyer for informing the jury of their rights.

Thankfully Johnson’s effort to punish the defendants’ lawyer for telling the jurors of their rights was found unlawful, but that he even attempted this unlawful and unprecedented move is still illustrative of his biased and incompetent handling of the case.

Johnson’s explanation for adding the "terrorism designation" is also deeply problematic.

According to his reasoning the actions of the defendants were conceived as an attempt to "influence the government, or an international governmental organisation", namely the government of Israel.

Practically all non-violent protest and civil disobedience is intended to "influence governments", so according to Johnson’s biased reasoning, any time anyone attempts to change government policy through direct action, they’re guilty of "terrorism", even though no violence was committed, and nobody was actually terrorised!

It’s hardly difficult to see how such powers could be misused by politically motivated judges under a far-right authoritarian government.

Reform have already spoken about firing experienced judges, and replacing them with Reform-loyalists, and Johnson is laying the groundwork for Reform-loyalist judges to add after-the-fact "terrorism designations" to any kind of resistance against Reform government policy.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Keir Starmer and David Lammy are attempting to scrap the ancient British right to trial by jury in cases with sentencing guidelines of below three years, meaning that if they get their way, biased judges like Johnson could remove the right to trial by jury by saying charges like obstruction or criminal damage don’t warrant a jury trial, find them guilty of the lesser offences, then sentence them to much longer than three years by adding terrorism designations after the fact.

In order for justice to be seen to be done, it’s absolutely obvious that the public; the defendants; the defendants’ legal team; and the jury should all know what the charges actually are.

Biased judges like Jeremy Johnson should not be allowed to ban defendants from explaining their motivations for their actions; and they should not be allowed to seek unlawful against lawyers who tell jurors of their legally established right to acquit on conscience.

The ongoing misuse of terrorism legislation in order to deter protest against British complicity in genocide and war crimes is also an absolute affront to fair justice, and to common sense.

It’s extraordinary that we’ve just seen a blatantly biased judge trying to scrap centuries-old British legal precedents; seek unlawful retribution against a lawyer for explaining jurors’ legal rights; deliberately keep the jury in a state of ignorance about what they’re actually convicting people of; and misuse terrorism designations on behalf of the government of Israel, and the Starmer government that is complicit in Israel’s genocidal actions.

Hopefully Jeremy Johnson’s rampage of biased legal vandalism can be overturned on appeal, because if it isn’t, it sets deeply worrying legal precedents that should bother literally everyone, not just those who oppose Israeli genocide.