Tony Greenstein's Blog

By Labelling Direct Action as Terrorism Britain’s Judiciary Have Become Complicit in Support for Genocide – Jeremy Johnson is Britain’s Roland Freisler

I won’t waste words on Jeremy Johnson, a man with no discernible talents that a Judge in Hitler’s Germany didn’t possess. He would have been a perfect Third Reich judge. 77% of senior Justice Ministry officials in West Germany in 1957 were former members of the Nazi party and between 1,100 and 1,200 Nazi judges served as public prosecutors and judges in West Germany.

Johnson is in a long line of British judges with no moral compass, honesty or integrity. He was the go to lawyer for MI6 and the Ministry of Defence. He was also responsible for reducing the sentence on Tommy Robinson.

“The way that we respond to this is by fighting even harder, that every struggle has its setbacks. But we are going to win in the end. We can’t give in. We can’t be deterred”

My interview with the Guardian on the Court of Appeal ruling on Palestine Actionhttps://t.co/KsIug2BLXO
— Huda Ammori (@HudaAmmori) June 16, 2026

His instruction that the jury be kept in ignorance of the fact that the Filton 4 would be sentenced as terrorists, even though they weren’t charged with terrorism, marks a new low, for our ‘justice’ system. We can expect this reactionary Court of Appeal to uphold the decision to prevent the Filton 4 defending themselves. British justice today is a charade when defences such as Necessity have been removed. Judges have become the legal icing on the merchants of death.

Johnson attempted to refer Rajiv Memon KC for contempt of court for informing the jury of their rights to disregard his directions and find the defendants not guilty. The Court of Appeal rejected that one because even a law student should know that such a referral has to go to the Attorney General.

The Court of Appeal’s Reference to the Suffragettes as ‘Peaceful’ Demonstrates the Depths of Their Ignorance

Chief Justice Sue Carr Rewrites History - 'Unlike Palestine Action the Suffragettes Were Peaceful'

Sue Carr and her four judicial pygmies pretend that they are independent of the Executive but, as the Court of Appeal in the Palestine Action case last Monday proved, they are as independent as a dog on a leash is independent of its owner. The snarling of Johnson and Carr marks them out as devoted servants of the security state.

They don’t need to have to be told what to do by government ministers. They know where their class loyalty lies. As the Law Gazette pointed out senior judges are the most socially exclusive of all professions. The Report, Elitist Britain showed that 65% of senior judges were educated at an independent school and 75% attended Oxford or Cambridge. Sue Carr went to an independent private girl’s school and then onto Trinity College, Cambridge.

This Minister’s Question Should SHOCK You

The mores of the upper classes find their reflection in their judgements. Only a fool would maintain that their privileged background had no bearing on their decisions. Political prejudice oozes out of every pore of these wretches. Their racist and anti-working class judgements flow from their class allegiances.

The Genocide in Gaza has demonstrated that British Judges are willing to ignore both history and the law when it suits them. Sue Carr said that Palestine Action

is not as it claims a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the Suffragettes operating transparently in the open, it is covert group operating in cells. Palestine Action activities have caused injuries. [36.08]

Tim Crosland of Defend Our Juries reaction to the Court of Appeal banning of Palestine Action

The Suffragettes and non-Violence

The first lie is that damage to property is violence. It is indicative of the mentality that considers property more important than people.

Between 1912 and 1914, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) conducted hundreds of attacks across the UK, including bombings and arson. Christabel Pankhurst declared in 1913 that:

‘If men use explosives and bombs for their own purpose they call it war, and the throwing of a bomb that destroys other people is then described as a glorious and heroic deed. Why should a woman not make use of the same weapons as men. It is not only war we have declared. We are fighting for a revolution!’

This was not mere rhetoric. Today it is recognised that those who opposed the Suffragettes, including the judges of the time, were reactionaries whose arguments were indefensible.

The attitude of Authorities was vehemently hostile. On Black Friday, 18 November 1910

Lines of police and crowds of male bystanders met three hundred female protestors outside the Houses of Parliament; the women were attacked for the next six hours. Many women complained about the sexual nature of the assaults, which included having their breasts twisted and pinched. Police arrested 4 men and 115 women, although the following day all charges were dropped. The conciliation committee were angered by the accounts, and undertook interviews with 135 demonstrators, nearly all of whom described acts of violence against the women; 29 of the statements included details of sexual assault. Calls for a public inquiry were rejected by Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary.

The violence may have caused the subsequent deaths of two suffragettes. The demonstration led to a change in approach: many members of the WSPU were unwilling to risk similar violence, so they resumed their previous forms of direct action—such as stone-throwing and window-breaking

The Police were as hostile then to the Suffragettes as they are to anti-Zionists and Palestine actionists. The Judiciary were equally hostile though they now like to pretend that the Suffragettes were in the best of British traditions. The Judiciary have always supported the most reactionary political sections of British society.

During the 1909 trial of suffragettes in Bristol Justice Grantham declared that their actions were "entirely unwomanly." Such women were considered ‘unladylike, unwomanly and unsexed!

Lord Chief Justice Alverstone in 1913 presiding over major trials of the WSPU leaders, consistently framed the suffragettes' direct action as a descent into irrationality and madness, arguing that true English womanhood should be defined by quiet domestic influence.

Magistrates at Bow Street Police Court routinely dismissed suffragette defences as the ramblings of "hysterical women," explicitly noting that the movement relied on emotional distress rather than logical or political strategy.

The Arrest of Peaceful 'Terrorists' in Trafalgar Square

The Suffragettes As Terrorists

On the very same day that Yvette Cooper introduced the motion banning Palestine Action she turned up in the House of Commons in the colours of the Suffragettes – purple. Ignorance and hypocrisy are the hallmarks of our ruling class.

If there was any group of protesters who deserved to be classified as terrorists it was the Suffragettes. Twice Chief Justice, Sue Carr, said that the Suffragettes were a peaceful direct action group unlike the violent Palestine Action.

Palestine Action characterises itself as a non-violent direct action protest group following in the footsteps of the suffragettes and the campaigns against apartheid and the Iraq war.

In our judgement that premise was seriously flawed. It was not a sustainable proposition to portray Palestine Action as a non violent organisation and not accurate for Ms Ammori to paint Palestine Action as an ordinary protest group falling within the tradition of peaceful protest.

And Carr wittered on:

Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawfully promotes violence amounting to terrorism. It is not as it claims a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the Suffragettes operating transparently in the open, it is a covert group operating in cells. Palestine Action activities have caused injuries.

Even a cursory acquaintance with the facts would have demonstrated that Carr’s assertions were one long lie.

On 20 November 1909 a suffragette attacked Winston Churchill with a horse whip on the platform of Bristol railway station. In the same month, Selina Martin and Lesley Hall, disguised as orange sellers and, armed with a catapult and missiles, attacked Prime Minster Asquith’s car in Liverpool.

In 2010 in Battersea, a clerk suffered burns as he tried to stop a suffragette throwing a liquid over the papers of an MP. Newspapers (and even the accounts of the suffragettes) prove that there were numerous instances where injuries occurred, and that personal risk, or even death, was great.

In 1912 Suffragettes attempted to set fire to the Theatre Royal in Dublin during a packed lunchtime matinee attended by Asquith. They left a canister of gunpowder close to the stage and threw petrol and lit matches into the projection booth which contained highly combustible film reels. Earlier in the day, Mary Leigh had hurled a hatchet towards Asquith, which narrowly missed him cutting John Redmond MP on the ear.

Also in 1912 Glasgow Art Gallery has its glass cases smashed. Bank and post office windows were smashed from Kew to Gateshead. In September 23 trunk telegraph wires were cut on the London road at Potters Bar and on 28 November simultaneous attacks on post boxes occurred across the entire country. By the end of year, 240 people had been sent to prison for militant suffragette activities.

In 1913, a suffragette attacked the glass cabinets in the Jewel House at the Tower of London while in Dundee four postmen were severely injured by phosphorus chemicals left in post boxes. In Dumbarton 20 telegraph wires were cut; Kew Gardens orchid house was attacked and its teahouse burnt down. In Ilford, three streets had their fire alarm wires destroyed and Saunderton railway station was destroyed.

In 1914 the destruction continued. Mary Richardson slashed the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery. London saw a wave of cultural violence: The British Museum had mummy cases smashed, and bombs were discovered in St Paul’s and the Metropolitan Tabernacle, where a postcard was left bearing the message, ‘Put your religion into practice and give the women freedom.’

Filton Protest 12 June 26 Speakers inc. Tim Crosland and a member of the jury at the first trial

Suffragette bombing and arson campaign

The arson attacks put Palestine Action to shame. A £2,000 house at Cheam was burnt as was Croxley Green Railway Station. Lady White’s house at Staines (£3,000) and a house near Chorley Wood were burnt. So was a railway-carriage at Teddington. The house of Arthur Du Cros was burnt at St. Leonards. In Tunbridge Wells the Cricket Pavilion was burnt. Fulham Park Bowling Green Pavilion was burnt as was Farington Hall, near Dundee, with damage estimated at £20,000. See National Archives Suffragettes on File.

Did they injure anyone? Were the Suffragettes Non-Violent?

The official directive from the WSPU leadership was to damage property and disrupt the economy without taking human lives. However, their explosive devices and arson attacks directly injured dozens of people.

At least 24 people were injured (including two suffragettes) as a direct result of their bombs and fires. Bombs were placed on busy train carriages and in public spaces like Dublin theatres.

The Suffragettes weren’t terrorists. But to describe Palestine Action as a terrorist group compared to the Suffragettes is ludicrous. If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn this decision then it too will hold its head in shame for its dishonesty.

That all 5 judges were unanimous suggests that the judiciary will do anything to support the genocide in Palestine.

Sue Carr emphasised the covert nature of Palestine Action as if when planning a factory occupation it is a condition of being a protest group that one must do it openly. Did the Suffragettes openly plan their arson campaigns? Of course not. To suggest otherwise is deceitful.

Genocide and a Lawful Business

The Court of Appeal referred repeatedly to the operations of Elbit as lawful. Palestine Action’s ‘operations were intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing lawful business.’ Elbit’s manufacture of quad copter drones are anything but lawful. They have been repeatedly used to kill children as Professor Nizam Mamode told the International Development Committee. Israeli soldiers have boasted of killing children and posted videos to that effect.

The International Criminal Court Act 2001 s.53 [ICCA] makes being ancillary to genocide or war crimes a criminal offence. Elbit is doing exactly this yet our judges turn a blind eye to this. How can this be lawful? The Judges have taken a conscious decision to turn a blind eye to Elbit operations.

On 12 November 2025 the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against a decision to permit the UK government licensing F-35 parts that reach Israel. The Court declined to rule on the UK government’s assessment of genocide, stating that this was not for the courts but the government to decide.

Which other laws will the judges leave to the government to interpret. What then is the role of the Judges?

The Court of Appeal decided, on the basis of three alleged terrorist incidents, to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, not because it was a terrorist group but because ‘proscribing Palestine Action would offer significant disruptive benefits including recruitment, operating model and finances’. This was despite accepting that ‘there may be many people subject to this chilling effect’ on free speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a direct result of the proscription decision.

As Mark Zuehlke wrote about the Nazi Judge Roland Freisler:

Before the war, Freisler had argued that anybody committing a crime against the state should be considered a terrorist

This is the judicial philosophy of Sue Carr and the judicial dwarves who made up the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal conducted what is known as a test of proportionality, whether banning Palestine Action was disproportionate in terms of its effect on free speech and unsurprisingly the Court found it wasn’t. This was a wholly artificial exercise in which irrelevant factors such as the effect on Palestine Action’s organisation were taken into account. They engaged in a circular argument because they based it on the assumption that Palestine Action was a terrorist group.

The Court of Appeal cited as proof ‘the panic among staff as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown.’ So anyone throwing a smoke bomb is now a terrorist? Terrorism has traditionally been seen as the domain of explosives and guns. Now it is pyrotechnics and smoke bombs.

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines ‘terrorism’ as ‘violent action or threats designed to cause fear among ordinary people, in order to achieve political aims.’ The Collins English dictionary has a similar definition.

According to Dr Kshitij Prabha of Columbia University

‘Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something.’

Palestine Action doesn’t even remotely come near these definitions of terrorism yet the Court of Appeal has gone along with the idea that dissident groups that damage property are ‘terrorist. As George Orwell noted:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.... Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.

We live in an Upside Down Society where opponents of Genocide are gaoled and the Merchants of Death are lauded.

There is only one thing that will prevent the Court of Appeal having the last word on the proscription of Palestine Action and that is if enough people are prepared to defy the law.

Historically freedom of speech and democratic rights were not handed to us on a plate. The fight for our rights was won, not because of judges but despite them. Judges have always been on the wrong side of these struggles. Today’s Court of Appeal dresses up its support for repressive bans with phrases like ‘national security’’ but the greatest threat to our security comes from those who would take away our basic civil liberties in the cause of supporting genocide.

Filton Protest 12 June 2026 drumming and protesting

In the battle to convict anti-genocide protesters we have pathetic creatures like David Lammy abolishing the right to trial by jury because juries are the one independent element in our ‘justice’ system.

From the Tolpuddle Martyrs, whom Sir John Williams ordered to be transported to Australia, to the Suffragettes, Judges have been on the side of repression. They presided over strict licensing laws for the press, the Star Chamber, sweeping treason acts and prosecutions for seditious libel. Crown-aligned judges actively enforced these tools to suppress dissent, famously ruling that the jury could only decide if a text was published, not if it was illegal.

The case of Edward Bushell in 1670 is the most famous case in British history. It was this case which established the independence of the jury from the Judge. Jeremy Johnson forbade the barristers to mention this case.

The last government prosecuted Trudy Warner for reminding jury members of their right to acquit defendants regardless of the wishes of the Judge. When taken to the High Court it was thrown out by Judge Sani who said that:

It is fanciful to suggest that Ms Warner’s behaviour falls into the category of contempt. The category is limited to threatening, intimidatory, abusive conduct or other forms of harassment.

Judge Sani said there was a well-established principle in law of jury equity; this was a de facto power to acquit a defendant regardless of the judge’s directions. The principle in law had been tested in the highest courts in England and Wales and existed in other countries such as Canada and the US.

In Bushell two Quakers, William Penn and William Meade were prosecuted for preaching to an unlawful assembly. It was a crime to preach to a religious assembly of more than five people unless you were of the Church of England. They stood trial at the Old Bailey and at the end of the evidence, the judge directed the jury to convict, but the jury refused to do so.

The judge was furious, and stated that the jury would not be dismissed until they did so. The jury again refused to convict. The judge remanded the entire jury in custody for two days and ordered that they be denied food, water and chamber pot.

As the jurors were being taken from court to prison, William Penn, it is said, shouted out, “You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away your right”, to which one member of the jury, Edward Bushell, replied, “Nor shall we ever do.” When the jury returned to court two days later, the judge again ordered them to convict. The jury refused.

The judge fined the jury for contempt of court and remanded them in custody until the fines were paid. Eight jurors paid but four refused, and one of those was Bushel, who petitioned the Court of Common Pleas for a writ of habeas corpus, which if granted, would result in his immediate release from custody.

The higher court issued that writ, and Bushel and the other three were released, establishing the right of a jury to return a verdict without fear of punishment from the trial judge.

This is one of the most celebrated cases in British legal history. There’s a marble plaque inside the Old Bailey which reads as follows:

Near this site, William Penn and William Meade were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury, Thomas Veer, Edward Bushel, and 10 others who refused to give a verdict against them, although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of not guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus, and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the court, which established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions.

British Judges Have Become Increasingly Reactionary

There was a period during the 1980s to 2000s when the Court of Appeal and House of Lords/Supreme Court were relatively liberal under judges like Thomas Bingham, Lord Woolf, Peter Taylor, Johann Steyn, Brenda Hale, Anthony Hooper, Stephen Sedley and Lord Hope.

Today we have a gaggle of senior judges who are judicial pygmies. Sue Carr’s bizarre citing of the Suffragettes should disqualify her from judging a game of tiddlywinks. She and her fellow judges are fond of referring to ‘national security’ when it is the security of their class that they mean.

Genocide and the bombing and burning alive of children and their parents in tents is an abstraction to them. They are racist to the core with a police state mentality. There is no scenario in which Palestine Action is a threat to ‘national security’. Not supporting Israel’s genocide is not a threat to national security but a threat to Britain’s imperialist alliances.

If anything is a threat to national security it is Israel’s perpetual wars. With it attack on Iran it caused a rise in fuel prices as well as causing instability in the Middle East.

In my view there is no doubt that there is a body of judges who would like to overturn the case of Edward Bushell. If the government had appealed the decision of Judge Sani to the Court of Appeal they might have. Jury Equity or Nullification is likely to come under attack in the future.

Jeremy Johnson’s decision, in a hearing kept secret from the jury, that if found guilty of criminal damage, the Filton defendants would be guilty of terrorism, defied the most basic legal principles. For justice to be done it has to be seen to be done. As Geoffrey Robertson said:

It is a foundational principle of English law that no one should be convicted of an offense that has not been charged and proven.... The principle of the Elbit Four case is larger than they are. The British state has redefined civil disobedience as terrorism

It will be interesting to see whether the Court of Appeal resorts to another dishonest legal subterfuge in upholding Johnson’s decision.

The Court of Appeal verdict in the Palestine Action case is so shoddy that the Supreme Court will have difficulty upholding it. However it is likely that they will make the attempt.

That is why we should aim in the next few months to building a mass movement of defiance. We should aim for at least 10,000 people willing to be arrested for the ‘crime’ of opposing genocide and supporting Palestine Action.

We should also make Jeremy Johnson feel the full force of public disapproval. Whenever he speaks in public or deigns to lecture others he should be reminded that he is only fit to be a judge in a fully fledged police state.

That is why I have compared him to Hitler’s favourite judge, Roland Freisler. Freisler died when the Americans bombed the court house he was sitting in. It is probably too much to hope for a similar fate for His Honour Judge Jeremy Johnson.

Tony Greenstein

See The Belfast riots, Palestine Action protests. What is terrorism now – and why the hypocrisy? George Monbiot

A Very Short History of Freedom of Speech