The Met & Judge Jeremy Johnson are Trying to Rig the Filton 6 Retrial

The Jury Aren’t Being Allowed to Know the Context of the Defendant’s Actions, Their Right to Acquit on the Grounds of Conscience Nor that They will be Sentenced, if found Guilty of Criminal Damage, as Terrorists

Zarah Sultana Speech in House of Commons - How Judges & the State are Trying to Rig the Retrial of Filton 24 by Keeping Jurors in the Dark

On the 13^th April I went to Woolwich Crown Court where the first 6 of the Filton 24 were facing a retrial. Last February all 6 defendants were acquitted of aggravated burglary, the most serious of the charges, carrying a life sentence.

Palestine Action defendants are blocked from explaining their motives or mentioning Israel, genocide, or the target of their actions

The British state is destroying its own courts to protect Israel's apartheid system

We are reporting this because British media can not https://t.co/wKVMecAqEE

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) April 14, 2026

Three of the six, were cleared by the jury of violent disorder and the prosecution last week offered no evidence on this charge against the remaining 3 defendants.

The only charges outstanding are those of criminal damage and in the case of Samuel Corner, Grievous Bodily Harm in respect of Police Sergeant Kate Evans.

Picket on the First Day of the Retrial

The mass media was full of allegations that Corner had deliberately attacked Evans with a sledgehammer. In fact the injury was barely noticeable and the charge of GBH is grossly excessive.

Woolwich Crown Court on Thursday - Cleared of Demonstrators

What the lying British media did not report was that Pava, a synthetic pepper spray had been directed at his face blinding him and then he heard a fellow actionist screaming out in pain. He swung his sledgehammer instinctively and having been blinded.  But you wouldn’t expect the feral British press to report the truth.

WATCH - Trudi Warner arrested, handcuffed, and carried for holding a placard with the law written on it outside Woolwich Crown Court.

“There’s a High Court Ruling about this law”

Trudi ought to know, because the case was “the Secretary General vs Trudi Warner”, and Trudi won. pic.twitter.com/i9UOorjpDz

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) April 23, 2026

Judge Jeremy Johnson - Doing His Best to Secure Guilty Verdicts - A Ruling Class Patsy

This week we learn, and thanks to Zarah Sultana for using her privelege to reveal this in a speech in the House of Commons, that Judge Jeremy Johnson, who  spent his legal life defending the State and MI6, including ruling that  Assange should be deported, has ordered that the jury should not be informed that if the defendants are convicted of criminal damage they will be sentenced as ‘terrorists’.

It is part of the sick society that we live in that you are a ‘terrorist’ if you damage a death factory that is producing drones to murder children and you are a hero if you profit out of those deaths. ‘Justice’ Jeremy Johnson is a fit representative of such a society but it is Starmer, Yvette Cooper and the coconuts that go by the name of Lammy and Shabana Mahmood who are presiding over this injustice.

Literally holding the wording of a plaque over an Old Bailey entrance. pic.twitter.com/Pag9MeXjx9

— Mick ☕️🍉 (@MickCoffey2) April 23, 2026

The jury acquittals in February are why Lammy is determined to abolish jury trials for those liable for less than 3 year sentences. The jury is the one independent element in the whole so-called Justice System. Judges are appointed by the Executive and are their creatures. This so-called Labour Government is determined to continue where the last Tory government left off.  

Supporting Genocide is illegal under British law. Sections 51/52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 make the commission or support of genocide a criminal offence. Yet last year the High Court allowed the government to continue to supply arms for that genocide citing ‘reasons of state’. 

Our judges have no morality and bend the law to fit what they see as the needs of the State. Just as they do their best to adjust their rulings to the needs of their class and justify it through the use of weasel words.

Picket on the First Day of the Retrial

BREAKING

A dozen sign-holders have shown up outside Woolwich Crown Court today.

This is in response to the Met’s draconian restrictions on yesterday’s peaceful (and totally lawful) vigil outside Woolwich Crown Court, where two sign-holders were unlawfully arrested.

Live 🧵 pic.twitter.com/3lONMKiEFd

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) April 24, 2026

Demonstrators Had Been Moved to the Opposite Side of the Road & Forbidden to Use Loud Hailers 

I was happy to be asked to speak to the wonderful people who had gathered there and who had congregated to make sure that the jury and others passing by knew that this trial was a fit up.

Five of the Filton 6

Woolwich Crown Court is next to Belmarsh Prison and it is surrounded by high metal fences. There was a heavy police presence because preventing justice being done is more important than catching rapists and other criminals.

I also went up on Thursday 23 April and it was a totally different atmosphere. The Met had applied Section 14 of the Public Order Act and cleared the entrance to the court of all demonstrators. I later learnt that two members of Defend Our Juries, including Trudy Warner, had been arrested for holding signs saying that the jury deserved to know the whole truth, not what they are spoonfed by Judge Johnson.

Other signs emphasised that a jury has the right to acquit according to their convictions and conscience. This dates back to the 1670 case of Edward Bushell when the Judge instructed the jury to convict William Penn and William Mead of having spoken to a seditious assembly. Only the state church had that right.

The First Day of the Retrial When Demonstrations Were Not Prohibited

Despite being locked up without food, water, fire or chamber pot the jury refused to convict and were heavily fined (the equivalent of one year’s wages. Edward Bushell was gaoled for refusing to pay the fine and was eventually released after a writ of habeus corpus was granted by a reluctant Chief Justice Vaughan.

Today there is a marble plaque at the Old Bailey commemorating this decision and it reads:

Near this site WILLIAM PENN and WILLIAM MEAD were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly ... This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury,... 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.”

The Metropolitan Police arrest of the two demonstrators was an unlawful arrest whose purpose was to prevent the jury from knowing of their rights. On Friday another 12 people were arrested for holding similar signs. The Metropolitan Police are in the business of establishing a Police State courtesy of the lying Starmer and Mahmood.

The signs asserted the rights of jurors (jury equity). One of the two is Trudi Warner. She was holding the exact same sign she held when unlawfully arrested in 2023, which became the focus of a year-long case to prove that it is not unlawful to hold this sign outside a court. The High Court determined that holding such a sign is not illegal, (Solicitor General vs Trudi Warner) but the Met decided to simply ignore this case.

Not only are jurors in the Filton 24 trial being denied the truth inside court, their right to make a decision based on their conscience, irrespective of a judge’s direction, is also being hidden from them.

It is impossible to know at this stage what the decision of the jury will be. I’m told that it has less Black and Muslim people on it.  No doubt the state has vetted the lists beforehand.

Picket on the First Day of the Retrial

Let us hope that the Filton 6 are acquitted of the remaining charge and Samuel Corner is also found not guilty. Despite the lies of the Daily Mail and the Zionist Jewish Chronicle the Filton 24 are heroes and people like Jeremy Johnson and the Shabana Mahmoods of this world are the villains. See:

https://www.declassifieduk.org/julian-assange-judge-previously-acted-for-mi6/

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/elbit-raid-trial-latest-palestine-10914146

Palestine Action’s ‘Filton 6’ cleared in ‘huge victory for moral courage in face of political pressure’

Victory for the Filton 24 As Jury Acquits Them On The Most Serious Charge of Aggravated Burglary

Let Noone Be Under Any Doubt That It is ‘Perverse’ Acquittals Such as This That Are Responsible for Starmer & Lammy’s Attempts to Abolish Juries

Press Conference & Speeches at the Acquittal of Six of the Filton 24 4.2.26.

It says something about the fake democracy in which we live that the Filton 6, whose trial has just ended, faced life sentences for trying to prevent genocide, whereas the legal system, represented by Judge Jeremy Johnson, did its best to convict them.  Because in trials today of Palestine solidarity protesters we face two prosecutors – one in the well of the court and one on the bench.

It was a long 10 weeks trial at Woolwich Crown Court for the six defendants. They were charged with aggravated burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder. Samuel Corner was also charged with grievous bodily harm.

On the most serious charge, of aggravated burglary, all 6 defendants were acquitted. Since all of the Filton 24 were charged with this, it logically follows that since the first 6 have been acquitted that this charge should be dropped against the other 18. It is after all a ‘joint enterprise’ charge.

Even Lammy, the Injustice Secretary, should be able to understand that if all 24 enter a factory and 6 are not guilty of burglary that it makes no sense to try the other 18.

On the next most serious charge, violent disorder, which carries a 5 year sentence, 3 of the defendants, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin were acquitted and the jury failed to reach a verdict on the other 3.

On the question of whether they were guilty of criminal damage the jury could not agree. They also could not agree whether or not Samuel Corner was guilty of grievous bodily harm.

One thousand new recruits as Palestine Action ban tabled, with Asa Winstanley

In other words, after 8 days of deliberation the jury didn’t return a single guilty verdict. From the perspective of the Crown Prosecution Service, it throws into doubt their whole strategy of criminalising Palestine Actionists as terrorists and seeking to lock them up for years.

Judge Jeremy Johnson - represented MI6, ruled Assange's Deportation Could Proceed - Reactionary to the Tip of his Toes

Judge Jeremy Johnson did his best to obtain a conviction. When a juror asked whether they were allowed to acquit because the defendants genuinely believed that they were destroying weapons to prevent their use in genocide, Johnson replied ‘no’.

It also explains why, given the doubts that must have existed as to whether these charges would stick, the CPS, which is de facto a government department, sought to deny the defendants bail.

They did this knowing that the Judiciary, despite its much proclaimed  independence, is in reality about as independent of the government as a dog on a leash. Judges have historically been in the forefront of government repression and today they are behaving no differently.

Yvette Cooper and Starmer had, in complete defiance of legal norms, pronounced that members of Palestine Action had attacked the police with a sledge hammer as justification for the proscription of Palestine Action even before this fact was or was not established in a court of law.

Elbit security guard attacking Palestine Action defendants with sledgehammer

This was widely publicised by the prostitute press as fact when it was hotly disputed. As it turned out Samuel Corner had been blinded by Pava, synthetic pepper spray and was responding to what were called ‘blood curdling screams’ by Zoe Rogers who had been tasered twice and then dragged around by a police officer with his foot on her stomach.

The violence of the security thugs that Elbit employed to defend their factory of death were not been mentioned by Starmer or Cooper. Nor was the violence against the protesters who had come to dismantle the quadcopters and other systems that Elbit produces in order that Israel can murder civilians and children.

When it comes to Andrew-Mountbatten then the Police are remarkably unconcerned about the Royal Rapist

We also know from the Epstein Affair that Starmer and his friends are remarkably unconcerned about child abuse, including the mass slaughter of Palestinian children. Israeli religious figures like Rabbis Mali and Dov Lior have explicitly endorsed the murder of Palestinian children to prevent a new generation of resistance fighters being born.

Those who support Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its mass murder of children cannot expect us to take seriously their proclamations of horror at Epstein’s friend, Peter Mandelson, being appointed as Ambassador to the United States. What is remarkable though is the lengths to which the mass media are determined to sensationalise the Epstein saga and keep Israel out of it when we know that Epstein was running a honey trap for Mossad.

There has also been a concerted attempt in recent years by politicians and judges to withdraw defences for protesters. In particular key defences such as "justification" and "lawful excuse".

The most significant shift occurred through Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2023), March 2024 in the wake of the Colston 4 trial in January 2022. The Attorney General, Suella Braverman, made the reference to the Court of Appeal who gave her what she wanted.

This ruling dramatically curtailed the "belief in consent" defence. The Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant’s political or philosophical beliefs (such as opposing the arms trade or genocide) are not "circumstances" of the damage that can be put to a jury. Juries are supposed to believe that groups of people, for some unknown reason, have taken such a dislike to a factory that they get together to smash it up.

This prevents protesters from explaining the reasons for their actions (e.g., stopping war crimes) as a legal justification for damaging property. Trial judges now have greater authority to withdraw these defences from the jury before they even deliberate if the judge decides the legal threshold for "circumstances" hasn't been met.

Following the "Stansted 15" and subsequent cases, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the defence of "necessity" (acting to prevent a greater harm) is generally unavailable to protesters who choose "maximally disruptive" tactics.

Attorney General's Reference No. 1 of 2022 also ruled that the right to protest under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR cannot be used as a "lawful excuse" for "significant" criminal damage. 

Nonetheless juries, such as that in the Filton 6 trial have often ignored the rulings of judges because in their eyes the purpose of a trial is to see that justice is done. If that means disregarding the bigoted views of reactionary judges then that is what they are prepared to do.

This is called a ‘perverse verdict’ or ‘jury equity’. The key case is that of Edward Bushell’s in 1670 when two Quakers, William Mead and William Penn were charged with preaching to an unlawful assembly. Despite being instructed by the judge to return a verdict of guilty, the jury refused to do so, even after having been imprisoned in the Tower for two days without food, fire, tobacco or water.

Perverse verdicts occur when a jury acquits a defendant despite believing they broke the law, often because they find the law unjust, its application unfair, or the punishment too harsh, effectively "nullifying" or invalidating the law in that specific case. Examples include that of Clive Ponting, the Trident Ploughshares and Randle and Potter cases. The same happened in the United States in cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act and Prohibition laws.

Jurors have the power to deliver a "not guilty" verdict, which cannot be overturned, though courts discourage openly encouraging nullification, viewing it as a controversial feature of common law rooted in the jury's right to decide a case as they see fit, even if contrary to the evidence.

It was perhaps best expressed by Thomas Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord, described by fellow judge Lord Hope as the greatest jurist of his day.

Bingham addressed the issue of acquittals contrary to the evidence by reference to a number of high-profile acquittals:

“... the acquittals of such high-profile defendants as Ponting, Randle and Pottle have been quite as much welcomed as resented by the public, which over many centuries has adhered tenaciously to its historic choice that decisions on the guilt of defendants charged with serious crime should rest with a jury of lay people, randomly selected, and not with professional judges. That the last word should rest with the jury remains, as Sir Patrick Devlin, writing in 1956, said (Hamlyn Lectures, pp 160, 162): ‘an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man’s idea of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement… The executive knows that in dealing with the liberty of the subject it must not do anything which would seriously disturb the conscience of the average Member of Parliament or of the average juryman. I know of no other real checks that exist today upon the power of the executive.’”

There is therefore a tension between Jury Equity and the instructions that judges give to juries.

There is no doubt that Lammy’s attempt to restrict jury trials to offences carrying over a 3 year prison sentence has nothing to do with delays in the hearings of trials, for which there is no evidence. His real concern is ‘perverse’ verdicts. Lammy knows that judges can be relied on to convict in political and direct action cases when a jury would refuse to do so.

Starmer’s regime is proving itself in every sense anti-democratic at home and genocidal abroad. It is riddled with corruption and none is more corrupt than Starmer himself who came top of the league when it came to getting ‘freebies’ from rich individuals and corporations. Fortunately it would appear that the days of Starmer, in the wake of the Mandelson Affair, are numbered.

Particular praise should go to Rajiv Menon KC who made a quite remarkable speech, sections of which are in a post by Jonathan Cook.

The result of the trial is that once again a jury has defied expectations. In the case of the charges of criminal damage Judge Johnson said that this was :

unlikely to cause you difficulty, given there was no dispute that the defendants who had given evidence at least intentionally damaged property in Elbit’s premises”.

How wrong this reactionary judge was. When the verdicts were read out it would appear that the charge of criminal damage caused great difficulty. So much so that the jury could not agree on a verdict!

However you will not be surprised to learn that the Board of Deputies found the verdict ‘troubling’ if not anti-Semitic. It urged the government to

provide clear direction in tackling hate crime and extremist violence. This incident underlines the urgency of the Home Office’s current review into public order and hate crime legislation.

This was because Palestine Action was a group ‘whose activities have included targeting businesses linked to the Jewish community in London and Manchester.’ In other words because Elbit is owned by Israelis British Jews are complicit in their genocidal activities.

Tony Greenstein

Victory for Palestine Action as “Filton 6” acquitted

Supporters respond as first six Filton 24 prisoners walk free

Palestine Action activists cleared of aggravated burglary at Israeli defence firm site

UK pro-Palestinian activists acquitted of 2024 aggravated burglary at Elbit factory

The First Trial of the Filton 24 Draws To A Close with Directions from the Judge that Genocide is no Excuse for Criminal Damage

 Do Not Forget the Hunger Strikers, 3 of Whom Are Dying as Lammy & Starmer Join the US's Narcissist-in-Chief in Destroying International Law 

Tony Greenstein Speech at Trial of Filton 24 at Woolwich Crown Court 9 January 2026 

Last Friday I went to the demonstration outside Woolwich Crown Court. Inside the trial of the first 6 of the Filton 24 was drawing to a close. The Jury should be going out today. There is a good report of the trial from Real Media here.

The Video The Government Doesn’t Want You To See

Not surprisingly there was a heavy police presence but despite the bitter cold there were about 100 protestors there. It was a lively demonstration and made a lot of noise with food and tea/coffee provided.

Geert Wilders – Dutch Fascist MP is Told He is Evil

See Real Media’s The Filton Trial – Week Six

There were a wide range of speakers, including a Christian Vicar who got us all singing along and I spoke on behalf of Jewish Network for Palestine.

We are living in an age of imperialism and authoritarianism. War abroad is accompanied by repression at home and the trial of the Filton 24 is a good example of this. Their only crime is doing their best to stop the Genocide but according to the judge Mr Injustice Johnson, trying to prevent Genocide is no excuse for criminal damage. British Judges are probably the most amoral part of British society after Keir Starmer and this government.

There are going to be 3 more trials and we face the prospect of the hunger strikers dying whilst war criminals Starmer and Lammy look on by, demonstrating their callous indifference to the possible death of 3 young people as they demonstrate their loyalty to Zionism.

This ‘Labour’ Government has no shame at all. All the hunger strikers are unconvicted and but for false allegations of a terrorism connection would already have been released on bail. ‘Terrorism’ is the go to allegation as ‘terrorism’ becomes the catch-all smear made against direct action protesters.

If anything is a good example of terrorism it is piracy on the high seas and the boarding of ships by the United States yet that was what happened this week with the complicity of the British navy thanks to Britain’s most unpopular Prime Minister, Keir Starmer.

Below is an Open Letter from the Lemkin Institute to Keir Starmer calling for him to intervene to prevent the deaths of the hunger strikers. The Institute is named after Raphael Lemkin, (1900–1959) who was a Polish-Jewish lawyer and linguist who coined the term "genocide" in 1944 and campaigned tirelessly to make it an international crime.

Lemkin is known as the "father" of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention and personally lobbied the United Nations to adopt the convention.

Let us keep the pressure up on the war criminals who rule us and the British state.

ESCALATE for the prisoners, ESCALATE for Palestine

My Prosecution for ‘Terrorism’ Required the Permission of Attorney General Richard Hermer

Who Passed the Decision to his Zionist Solicitor-General, Sarah Sackman, Vice-Chair of the  Jewish Labour Movement 2015-2024 - Bias? Perish the Thought

The Labour Files – Episode 1 – The Purge I Al Jazeera Investigations

The law is quite clear in respect of prosecutions under the Terrorism Act 2000. Under s.117(2A), in the event of a prosecution that relates to ‘a purpose wholly or partly connected with the affairs of a country other than the United Kingdom’ the consent of the Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer is required. In the event that he has a conflict of interest then he can hand the decision to the Solicitor General.

The Solicitor-General was Sarah Sackman, who was an officer of the Jewish Labour Movement, an ardently Zionist group, for 9 years. We don’t know for certain why Hermer passed the decision to Sackman but it would seem that it was his confession to the Jewish Chronicle that ‘I actively support a range of Jewish and Israeli organisations’ and that ‘I have dear family members currently serving in the IDF.’

Sackman however had no such scruples as you would expect from someone who is an ardent Zionist activist. Whereas Hermer has a record of being identified with human rights issues and opposed to the occupation of the West Bank, Sackman has never spoke out once against the Occupation, still less the genocide.

Sackman has been far more involved in things to do with Israel and Zionism as Vice Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement from 2015-24. She registered her position as JLM Vice-Chair in August 2014. It is not known exactly when she resigned but it’s possible that when she approved my prosecution she was still an office holder.

It is however clear that Sackman was personally involved in the JLM targeting me in the Labour Party for suspension and then expulsion in 2016. In the Leaked Labour Report that was issued in 2019 it was reported that Laura Murray from Corbyn’s office had emailed the head of the Governance & Legal Unit, John Stolliday, informing him of the JLM’s ‘frustration’ that mine and other cases had not been heard. The JLM had been pushing hard for our expulsion. As Vice-Chair Sackman could hardly have been unaware of this. The conflict of interest is blindingly obvious.

Saying what the British State Doesn't Want to Hear is Now 'Terrorism'

Sackman is supposed to reach a decision on cases like mine on the basis of what is in Britain’s national interest. The reality, as she has readily admitted, is that her allegiance is first and foremost to the Apartheid state.

Sackman served as a law clerk in the Israeli Supreme Court. Her grandfather Solomon Seruya was an Israeli ambassador to the Philipenes (1976-8). By her own admission she visited Israel on a yearly basis.

She has a maternal aunt and three cousins who live in Jerusalem. They will all have served in the IDF and today they are likely to be reservists. My statements supporting October 7 and the right of the Palestinians to self-defence against an occupation that has gone on for over 58 years, are not likely to have endeared me to her. 

Sackman is on record as saying that “The events of October 7 are the worst in my lifetime as a Jew,” To have her making the decision as to whether I or anyone else should be prosecuted is like putting Nick Griffin in charge of race relations or Harold Shipman in charge of the Geriatric Unit of a hospital.

Jewish anti-Zionists are the bête noir of people like Sackman. The JLM, despite pretending to be a progressive Zionist organisation, has not once expressed any reservations about the genocide in Gaza. Quite the contrary. She made it clear that she was opposed to the issuing by the International Criminal Court of warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant as war criminals. 

On May 24, 2024 she told the Jewish Chronicle that:

she had conveyed Jewish community’s concern over the decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan to seek arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant to shadow foreign secretary David Lammy, who said last week he supported ICC process.

Sackman is fully aware that Israel never prosecutes torturers or abusers - instead it prosecuted the Military Advocate General who leaked the video above

Sackman told the JC: 

I trust the Israeli people to hold their leaders to account, and I think they will in due course. I think the request to issue warrants in the middle of a war was unjustified.

Sackman not only demonstrated her Zionist fanaticism but her ability to lie without flinching. Israel has never held members of the IDF to account because of their war crimes or murder of Palestinians. The idea that under the current far-right Israeli government that could happen is testimony to the fact that there is no difference between Labour and Likud Zionism.

When Israeli soldiers were captured on video anally raping a Palestinian prisoner, who was left paralysed, not only did a mob attack the torture camp where they were held, Sdei Teiman, but 65% of Israelis said that the rapists shouldn’t face criminal prosecution.

Instead the Military Advocate General who leaked the video of the rape to the media, Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, was arrested. In Israel the whistle blowers are the ones who get punished not the war criminals but this shows more clearly than anything that Sackman is a genocide apologist.

On their website the JLM lists amongst their aims:

To maintain and promote Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.

Amongst their ‘values’ they exist:

To promote the centrality of Israel in Jewish Life and its development on the basis of freedom, social justice and equality for all its citizens.

This is based on the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem Program, to which the JLM is affiliated, which states that

The foundations of Zionism are the unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation.

One of the cardinal axioms of Zionism is that Jews, wherever they live, are part of one nation. Sarah Sackman is signed up to this nonsense. So the idea that she can make a decision on what is in the British ‘national interest’, whatever that is, when it comes to prosecuting anti-Zionists is patently absurd.

At a hustings in May 2015, the Times of Israel described how 

Sackman was the last person to make a decision as to who to prosecute for their comments on Israel and Gaza. In whose interests was she making the decision? She should not have had any hand in any decisions as to who to prosecute.

Sackman’s comment that the issue of Israel was “something that is deeply personal and emotional,” is precisely why she should not have been anywhere near the decision.

My barrister has therefore submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal alleging bias. In particular that Sackman’s allegiance to the Israeli state conflicts with her ability to rule on what is in Britain’s interest.

Whereas it is not in Britain’s interest to criminalise supporters of the Palestinians and opponents of genocide as ‘terrorists’ it is very much in the interests of the Israeli state to do so.

And if this was not enough then Sackman, in a joint article with Mike Katz, the former Chair of the JLM, in the Jewish News of March 26, 2016 explicitly attacked me. It beggars belief that she did not disqualify herself from taking a quasi-judicial decision. She wrote, in an article on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party that:

A senior Labour peer has been appointed to investigate the activities of the Oxford Labour Club and other problematic figures such as Tony Greenstein have been suspended. These are welcome first steps and a reflection of how seriously party officials take the issue [of anti-Semitism].

It is clear that her reference to me as ‘problematic’ was a lawyer’s way of saying that I was anti-Semitic. This is what the article, an internal Zionist debate with Jonathan Arkush, the then President of the Board of Deputies, was about.

The fact that Sackman thought it was ok to have anything to do with my prosecution for ‘terrorism’ i.e. freedom of speech on Palestine shows just how corrupt both she and our legal system is and how the fiction that the law officers are separate from the political hurly burly is just that.  A fiction.

Tony Greenstein