Palestine Action activists facing jail bid to remove judge with ‘pro-Israel bias’ claim

Judge Johnson had told the jurors that if the defendants believed they had been morally justified in smashing up Israeli firm Elbit's property, that would not be a 'lawful excuse'

Palestine Action damage at RAF Brize Norton. Photo Credit: Palestine Action
Palestine Action damage at RAF Brize Norton. Photo Credit: Palestine Action

Palestine Action activists have accused the judge overseeing their trial of bias, alleging he holds “a personal conviction that the Israeli government should be free to break international law.”

They are seeking to have him removed from sentencing, following their conviction for causing £1 million of damage at an Israeli defence firm’s UK base.

Last month, a jury at Woolwich Crown Court found Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Rajwani guilty of criminal damage at the Elbit Systems factory in Bristol, committed in the early hours of August 6, 2024.

All four are due to be sentenced next Friday.

At that hearing, Mr Justice Johnson is expected to consider whether their crime had a “terrorist connection” and whether this should result in longer prison terms.

In an unprecedented move, the activists plan to request the judge’s removal from the case at a hearing at the Old Bailey on Monday.

Their application follows the judge’s recent referral of defence barrister Rajiv Menon KC for possible contempt of court proceedings.

Judge Johnson had told the jurors that if the defendants believed they had been morally justified in smashing up Elbit’s property, that would not be a “lawful excuse.”

In his closing speech at the first trial, Menon cited a famous 17th-century Old Bailey case, emphasising that juries can independently decide cases according to their convictions and are not bound by a judge’s orders to convict.

Johnson argued that Menon’s remarks “invited the jury to disregard my directions,” which he considered a breach of fair trial rules.

The barrister denied ignoring the judge, saying that he was performing his duty to fairly and fully represent his client, Charlotte Head.

Johnson referred the speech to the High Court—and a senior judge in turn ordered that Menon should face contempt of court proceedings.

But the Court of Appeal agreed with Menon’s team that the case had been wrongly begun, saying that allegations of contempt had to be either dealt with directly by the trial judge at the time or referred to the Attorney General in government.

During the incident, Head (29), Corner (23), Kamio (30), and Rajwani (21) used an old prison van to break into the Elbit site, then used sledgehammers and crowbars to damage equipment and property. All were found guilty of criminal damage.

Corner was additionally convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, after striking a police officer with a sledgehammer during the night-time raid and fracturing her spine.

The defendants claimed their actions were necessary to protect Palestinians, but the judge barred them from presenting detailed evidence about the situation in Gaza during the trial.

In summer 2025, the government banned Palestine Action as a terrorist group. In pre-trial hearings that November, Mr Justice Johnson ruled that the charges related to the Elbit raid had a “terrorist connection.”

However, he prohibited juries in both the trial and retrial from being informed of this ruling. Then, in February, the High Court declared the Government’s proscription decision unlawful.

The defendants now believe they could be sentenced “as terrorists,” and argue it was unfair that juries were not informed this could be a consequence of a guilty verdict for criminal damage.

At the retrial, two co-defendants were acquitted of criminal damage, and all defendants were cleared of violent disorder and aggravated burglary charges.

The Defend Our Juries organisation reported that more than 2,600 people—including lawyers, law professors, retired police officers, and magistrates—have signed a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).

“Observers should not be able to discern a judge’s political opinions,” the complaint states.

“No rational observer, however, can doubt the political views of Mr Justice Johnson.

“His rulings are consistent only with a personal conviction that the Israeli government should be free to break international law and harm Palestinians.

“Taken together, these incidents form a pattern of exceptional, biased, and discriminatory conduct by the judge, for which he should be held accountable through the JCIO.”

A Court of Appeal ruling on whether Palestine Action’s proscription was legal is expected on June 15.

While the legal battle continues, the Metropolitan Police has committed to using anti-terrorism powers to arrest Palestine Action supporters, though court proceedings for those charged have been temporarily paused.

read more: