The presiding judge in a Palestine Action trial has refused an application by defendants to remove himself from their sentencing hearing over claims of bias.
Defendants in the case had filed an application for the recusal of Justice Jeremy Johnson from their sentencing hearing on Friday, in which he is expected to add a “terrorism connection” to their charges.
During a hearing at the Old Bailey on Monday, Johnson said that “any fair minded observer would not consider a real possibility of bias. I therefore refuse to recuse myself from sentencing proceedings,” according to the campaign group Defend Our Juries.
Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Samuel Corner and Fatema Rajwani risk facing sentencing as terrorists on 12 June, despite being convicted by a jury of criminal charges.
The only other defendant to be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism connection, without being charged with a terrorist offence, was the “Parson’s Green bomber” who was convicted of attempted murder.
CLICK FOLLOW: TO FOLLOW US
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other eSPORTY
In May, jurors at a retrial in Woolwich Crown Court found the four guilty of criminal damage in connection with a raid on an Elbit Systems plant near Bristol on 6 August 2024.
Two other activists, Jordan Devlin and Zoe Rogers, were cleared of the charges.
Corner was additionally convicted of causing grievous bodily harm without intent for striking a police officer.
Legal experts accuse Palestine Action judge of bias, lawyers demand recusal
Read More »
All six had previously been cleared of charges of aggravated burglary.
Rajwani, Devlin and Rogers were also found not guilty of violent disorder charges, while the jury did not return a verdict on the same charge for the other three defendants.
The terrorism connection was kept secret from the jury and will be decided by Johnson at sentencing.
The defendants’ bid for Johnson’s recusal is in part based on his unprecedented referral of the chief defence counsel Rajiv Menon KC for contempt of court.
A Court of Appeal subsequently ruled that Johnson had followed an unlawful process in doing so.
Defence lawyers accused him of an “unnecessary punitive response” for the contempt allegation, which Johnson had made while Menon was on holiday, saying that the action “put fear and intimidation on to the most senior of our ranks” and gave the appearance of bias against him and his client.
During the hearing on Monday, Johnson reportedly apologised to Menon for how he managed the referral.
