Convicted Palestine Action activists apply to have judge thrown off case before sentencing

Two other activists, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin, who had also been charged with criminal damage and who the court heard had been in the factory, were found not guilty.

All had been acquitted of aggravated burglary at an initial trial in February, but the jury had failed to reach a verdict on the criminal damage charges, resulting in a retrial.

However, Defend Our Juries accused Johnson of “betraying a loss of objectivity and a personal animosity towards the defendants and the Palestinian cause, incompatible with the role of a judge” during the case.

In a letter to the JCIO, the group claimed Johnson “treated the defendants’ conscientious motivation to prevent Israel killing Palestinian civilians as an aggravating feature rather than a mitigating feature” and “acted vindictively, and without support from the prosecution, in remanding Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani into custody, following their convictions for criminal damage”.

It also alleged that he “acted unlawfully” in referring Rajiv Menon KC, who defended Head, for contempt of court proceedings last month.

At the initial trial Menon, a leading human rights barrister who has worked on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, inquests of victims of the Hillsborough disaster, and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, faced Johnson’s ire after delivering a closing speech in January for his client.

Prior to the trial, the judge had ruled that the defendants could not argue they had a “lawful excuse” because of the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza.

He blocked evidence of Elbit’s supply of weapons to Israel from being presented in the trial, as well as evidence on the history of conflict in the Middle East, and the judge said the defendants could not argue they were justified in their actions that night because of Israeli genocide.

In his closing speech, Menon highlighted a plaque at the Old Bailey which sets out the “right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions”, in a move the judge said was in breach of his directions.

Johnson said Menon had “asked the jury to apply the principle of jury equity” – allegedly suggesting jurors could find the defendants not guilty by taking a decision “according to their conscience”.

The barrister also said on six occasions that the trial judge could not direct the jury to convict the defendants.

“The effect of Mr Menon’s speech was to invite the jury to disregard my directions that they should put views of the Middle East and the war in Gaza, and emotion, to one side”, concluded the judge.

He added that Menon is also accused of misleading the jury when he pointed out that the prosecution had not challenged evidence put forward by the defendants about Elbit’s business interests and the Middle East conflict.

However, the Court of Appeal subsequently blocked the case from progressing, saying that it was procedurally flawed and ruling that the contempt allegation should have either been dealt with by Johnson at the time of the trial or referred to the attorney general.

Defend Our Juries also took issue with the fact that jurors were not informed the defendants could be sentenced under counter-terror legislation, potentially doubling the jail terms handed down, before returning their verdict.

Johnson had ruled prior to the first trial that there appeared to be a “terrorist connection” to the raid, though this was before Palestine Action was proscribed as a terror group by the government.

He also ruled that the jury could not be informed of his decision, even though it could see the group sentenced under the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows for “serious damage to property” to be treated as a terrorist act if it is “designed to influence the government…or intimidate the public” for “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”.

If the court finds at sentencing that such a terrorist connection did exist, then the activists would have to serve their entire sentence in prison and could not be considered for parole until 2/3 through their term.

In contrast, non-terrorist prisoners usually serve around 40 per cent of their term before being considered for parole.

They could also be designated for life as terrorists, meaning that they would have to register any new electronic devices, bank accounts, email addresses or personal relationships with police.

"The judge has acted in a way which appears biased and discriminatory by treating the defendants’ motivation to stop Israel committing war crimes as a potentially aggravating factor,” read the complaint letter.

The letter concluded: “It should not be possible for observers to discern the political opinions of a judge.

"No rational observer, however, is left in any doubt regarding the political opinions 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 to slaughter Palestinians.

"Taken together, these three incidents amount to a pattern of exceptional, biased and discriminatory conduct on the part of the judge, for which he should be held to account through the JCIO.”

The JCIO said it does not comment on complaints or investigations until any potential disciplinary proceedings are concluded.