Yvette Cooper was told Palestine Action article might prejudice trial – but she ‘went ahead anyway’
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) warned Yvette Cooper that publishing an article justifying a ban on Palestine Action could risk damaging the criminal case of activists in the group – but she “went ahead anyway”.
Earlier this month Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani were found guilty of causing criminal damage during a raid on the Elbit Systems factory in Bristol in 2024.
Lawyers representing the defendants tried to stop the continuation of the trial, arguing that a column written by the then interior minister “deprived” their clients of the “presumption of innocence”.
In the article, Ms Cooper claimed counter-terrorism intelligence showed the organization had passed tests banned under the Terrorism Act 2000 with “disturbing information” about future attacks.
A previously unreported pre-hearing decision reveals that the CPS advised Ms Cooper before publishing the article that continuing with the article could prejudice the proceedings.
In a column published in The Observer last August, Ms Cooper was seen claiming that Palestine Action was waging an “escalating campaign” that included “intimidation, violence, weapons and serious injuries to individuals” as well as criminal damage.
He wrote: “Some may think this is a regular protest group known for occasional demonstrations. But that is not the extent of its past activities.”
In a pre-trial ruling given last November, Mr Justice Johnson explained how the CPS was made aware of the proposed publication of the article and “advised about the risk of bias”.
He wrote: “It must be acknowledged that the (then) Home Secretary was specifically advised that continuing with the article might be detrimental to these proceedings and that he proceeded anyway”.
The decision said Ms Cooper was said to have made public statements “knowing that these proceedings existed and that there might be questions as to the impact of her conduct and statements on those proceedings”.
Claiming abuse of process on behalf of the defendants, the lawyers claimed that the article was “an egregious example of derogatory journalism that directly interferes with the judicial process.”
They also expressed concern about how the public was told by a senior government official that the defendants’ behavior was linked to terrorism.
Defense lawyers argued that “the cumulative effect of the ban on Palestine Action, the concerned public and the prejudicial public statements of the interior minister deprived the defendants of the presumption of innocence.”
For this reason, they said that the defendants could not receive a fair trial.
However, the judge ruled that it had not been proven that the defendants would not receive a fair trial.
Mr Justice Johnson said: “The decision to ban the Palestine Action was highly controversial and required public justification.
“It is not surprising that the government tried to justify its decision publicly and relied broadly (without naming individuals) on the activities of Palestine Actions, including the activities that resulted in these cases.
“In doing so, the home secretary ran the risk of undermining these proceedings, but this is different from deliberately breaching a reporting restriction order.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “The judge concluded that the article did not prevent a fair trial.
“At the trial, four Palestine Movement members were found guilty of criminal damage and one was found guilty of grievous bodily harm.”
Palestine Action was banned as a terrorist organization under the Government’s banning order in July last year.
However, the controversial move was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court in February this year.
It was learned that four pro-Palestinian activists used the prison van to break the shutters of the Israeli-linked defense firm, and their cases were heard at Woolwich Crown Court.
Once inside, the activists began destroying property at the factory, then clashed with security guards and police who tried to stop the raid.
They will be sentenced in the same court on June 12.
Corner was also found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm.
Two other activists, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin, were cleared of criminal damage.
Before the hearing took place, the judge ruled that the charges they faced had a “terrorist connection”, after seeking background advice from the CPS.
But it also ruled that the verdict should not be presented to a jury and placed limits on the evidence that could be presented, including restricting the defendants’ ability to talk about Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
