Palestine Action activists jailed over factory raid

I’m sorry I don’t have the energy to debate with you the way in which s69 has been manipulated here.

It’s worth reading Menon’s closing speech for some balance.

It is interesting

The jury is the arbiter of the facts

the judge of the law

The sentence is purely for the judge

Johnson has made a final decision to take it to the High Court.

Robertson is not alone in his misgivings regarding the case and there are very many others like him within the legal profession who are shaken by the case itself and now the ongoing attempt to hold the defence barrister in contempt:

‘’Garden Court Chambers said it ‘stands in full support’ of Menon. In a statement, the chambers said: ‘The unprecedented contempt of court proceedings brought against Rajiv, a senior silk and former head of chambers, undermine and diminish our system of criminal justice. The administration of justice depends upon an independent bar willing and able to act in the best interests of their clients, fearlessly and with integrity.’’

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/contempt-case-against-silk-can-continue/5127142.article

To answer your question @Sulgari, I think the law should be scrutinised. I’m no expert but even I can see that there are unprecedented manoeuvres being made within the framework of our legal system, of which the jury system is the undisputed jewel.

Or is it?!

Do you think the law regarding this should be changed, @Ellen2shoes ? With regard to sentencing options, I mean

There is legislation to protect the press and the public gaining access in order to preserve the integrity of the jury. They had been charged with criminal damage so why would they take up Johnson’s offer to lift this once he had cited a terrorist connection.

Not sure why you have fixated on this rather than the point of his piece - which I won’t repeat again!

The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the UK press was barred from reporting on it.

At the defendants’ request! The judge said there was a strong public interest in reporting it but deferred to their wishes. So blame Palestine Action for that. Do you agree that Palestine Action made the wrong call there then?

And yes, the action was designed to influence the government but that was not why it was ruled to have a terrorist connection. It was that and the significant harm the action caused.

There is a reference/link in Robertson’s article to this? He did not ‘forget’ to read them. Of course they wanted to uphold the reporting restrictions - the legislation is there in the first place to ensure the integrity of the jury’s decisions.

For the final time, Robertson’s concerns in the article are focused on the unprecedented decision by a judge to sideline a jury and aggravate charges citing a ‘ terrorist connection’ when there had not been a charge by the CPS or a conviction by a jury of terrorism:

At a secret hearing during the first trial, Mr Justice Johnson had ruled that the protest carried a “terrorist connection”. This was unprecedented in the history of direct action trials. His reasoning was that the defendants’ purpose was to “influence” the British government – which is the purpose of almost every political protest ever mounted. The judge’s ruling was kept secret from both the jury and the public, and the UK press was barred from reporting on it.

Are you going to retract your comment now you know it was at the request of the defendants, or do you think their wishes should have been overruled?

The difficulty with this is that he seems to regard the protest as non violent, which does not tally with the information in the sentencing remarks

It can hardly be a surprise to be sentenced as a terrorist if one chooses to become a member of an organisation proscribed as terrorist

The sentencing for terrorism is part of the law, whetter you like it or not and they should have been made aware of this

I think what I truly dislike about these sort of cases is the double standards. Had they been Tommy Robinson goons attacking a target then the chattering classes would be singing a different tune

How embarrassing for Geoffrey Robertson KC to have written that article without having read the judge's sentencing remarks.

If he had, then he would know that the reason that the jury and public were unaware of the terrorist connection was because the defendants requested it.

I agree that justice should be done and to be seen to be done. I think a lot of us feel for the policewoman and our overwhelming outrage is towards Corner's violence.

For me, this has been compounded by the fact that three of the group were threatening and abusive to the security guard - like the policewoman doing his job. Thanks for the extra info @noblegiraffe

Added to this the continuing self-righteousnes of the group - if I remember correctly it was Charlotte Head who still says it is the best thing she has ever done. One can only conclude that they are unrepentant and would gladly do the same again?

The upholding of correct legal procedures affects us all and it’s important to recognise any diversion imo.

That doesn’t engage at all with the piece by Robertson who raises concerns about procedures.

If you read the piece, you might understand the points he is making about the highly irregular procedures regarding the case.

He is not disputing that anyone should or should not be punished for a violent crime.

Of course any violent act should be punished by law. The point that Roberson is making is about the procedure of the law with regards to all charges.

Excerpt from opinion piece by Geoffrey Robertson KC

You may not sympathise with the Elbit four’s methods. But you should be outraged by their treatment under the law
Geoffrey Robertson
was reprinted yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2026/jun/20/elbit-four-law-jurors-criminal-damage-terrorism

‘The Elbit four will be labelled as “terrorists” because they were convicted, in substance, of a quasi-terrorist offence that was never charged, never put to the jury, and never proven by the prosecution. The jurors who found them guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism. The prosecution was not required to establish the terrorist connection beyond reasonable doubt, or to any standard at all.’

These 2 bits were really interesting.

Corner hitting the police officer and breaking her spine then telling her as she was lying there in pain that she 'bore responsibility'. What a fucking toad that boy is.
And then Sgt Evans still tried to help him with her broken back.

Thanks for posting these notes xx.

Remarks about Corner-

The Pre-Sentence Report suggests that you are remorseful. I do not accept that
there is any substantial and genuine remorse. After striking her, and when it
must have been obvious that she was injured and in great pain, you told her that
she bore responsibility for Israel’s conduct in Gaza. You declined to answer
questions in interview. Nothing in your defence statement acknowledged the
harm that Sergeant Evans had been caused. You advanced an unrealistic account
that you were acting in self-defence. You refused to accept that that her injuries
amounted to really serious harm. As Officer Evans says, you have never even
said sorry, although your counsel says that is now something you would wish to do.

Commendation for Sgt Evans.

I commend Police Constable Kate Evans. All police officers take an oath to act
with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality and to accord equal respect to
all people. Constable Evans discharged that oath to an exceptional degree. After
her spine had been fractured by Mr Corner’s sledgehammer, her reaction was to
try to help him. He claimed to be in discomfort because his handcuffs were too
tight. Sergeant Evans, although in great pain, manoeuvred herself into a position
where she could check that the handcuffs had been applied correctly and were
not causing unnecessary discomfort.

The judge's sentencing remarks are extremely interesting.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/R-v-Charlotte-Head-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf

I have seen lots of comment on here that Samuel Corner lashed out 'in the heat of the moment' when he thought his friend was being attacked and that he was merely overwhelmed by the situation.

In the sentencing remarks it says that Samuel Corner swung his sledgehammer at the injured security guard and narrowly missed him. He swung his sledgehammer twice at PC Buxton when he was defenceless on the floor causing a minor injury. He then swung his sledgehammer twice at PC Kate Evans, including raising it above his head and bringing it down on her back.

He was attacking people with his sledgehammer all over the place! Not a one off action in defence of his friend at all.

OK thanks @Ellen2shoes - so what I posted was arising from the earlier trial and Menon has won that appeal.

None of the defendants was convicted. Following a retrial, a jury last week found four of the defendants, including Menon’s client Charlotte Head, guilty of criminal damage.