Thousands sign complaint ahead of hearing to remove ‘biased’ Filton judge

More than 3,000 people, including legal experts, have signed a formal complaint accusing the security service-linked presiding judge in the trial of six ‘Filton 24’ Palestine Action activists of bias and discriminatory conduct. The complaint comes in advance of a hearing on Monday 8 June on an application by the defendants for Jeremy Johnson’s removal from the case. Justice Jeremy Johnson on the grounds of apparent bias and abuses of process.

The jury had refused at the first trial to convict them on any of the state’s charges relating to damage to an Israeli-owned weapons factory, after police and security guards’ claims didn’t match CCTV evidence. At the retrial, security service-linked judge Jeremy Johnson banned any mention of the fact that the activists carried out their action to prevent the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. He banned lawyers from telling jurors of their legal right to acquit. Johnson even banned the media from reporting that the defendants might be sentenced under terror legislation — despite no terror charges being brought against them.

Despite the attempts to stack the trial in the state’s favour, two of the activists were acquitted on all charges. None were convicted of any violent intent. Yet at the sentencing hearing next Friday, 12 June, the government is pressing for terror-related sentencing. This would mean much longer prison time and draconian conditions imposed on the young activists for decades even after release. These could include having to register their phones with the authorities, report on any relationships and obtain permission to travel.

Filton 24 — “Manipulating the law”

The complaint signatories say the terror sentencing plan treats the defendants like Ahmed Hassan, the so-called “Parsons Green bomber”. Hassan is the only other person ever to be sentenced under UK law. Not charged with a terrorism offence yet sentenced as a terrorist. Hassan has received a life sentence in 2018 for a London Underground bombing that injured 51 people. The jury acquitted all the Filton defendants of any violent intent. The plan to sentence non-violent activists as terrorists “reveals [Johnson’s] loss of judgment and a discriminatory mindset towards the defendants”.

The complaint adds that by (unsuccessfully) prosecuting defence lawyer Rajiv Menon for contempt of court — Menon had defied Johnson’s restriction on what he could tell the jury — Johnson “had a prejudicial impact on the defendants”. Johnson also failed to deal with prejudicial statements by government ministers. Maud Dromgoole, who served as a juror in the first trial, said that the state was “manipulating the law” to make examples of the defendants.

The experts conclude that, added to Johnson’s “cruel and vindictive” treatment of the accused, his actions:

amount to a pattern of exceptional, biased and discriminatory conduct on the part of the judge.

Featured image via FiltonActionists

By Skwawkbox

Source link