Please note that this article has been updated by the author to reflect one key aspect of the events of 6 August 2024.
We need to discuss, as a Party, how we are going to put ourselves forward in defence of civil liberties.
In March 2024, I, along with my girlfriend, helped a friend move from Wales to London, because we had access to a van and were looking for an excuse to meet up and hang out. On the long drive along the M4, we had several long discussions about my friend’s unique experiences, notably in refugee volunteering and work in the charity sector. These conversations have shaped my identity as a Radical Social Liberal. Suffice to say, that car journey had a profound impact on me.
Right now, as I write this, that same friend is on her way to incarceration, having been sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. She has been sentenced and jailed as a terrorist, which will have far reaching consequences for her life. She, along with her actionist comrades, broke into Elbit Systems’ site in Filton in August 2024 with the stated and public aim of dismantling weapons of war, which were being manufactured to further enable the Israeli Armed Forces to commit genocide in Gaza. These people did not set out to hurt anyone. The conviction is already precarious due to what been alleged to be an unsafe conviction. I do also wish to state, for the record, that I am only writing this now as sentencing has been carried out and reporting restrictions have now been lifted. Almost everything I have said here is echoing what has already been said by various press and public outlets.
The real kicker for me has been that despite the offence was ruled to be not terrorism, the defendants were not being tried for a terrorism offence, and the jury had no knowledge where their vote to convict would lead. Regardless of your feelings on the actions of the Filton actionists, the way their trial has been handled is highly suspect and it could be said that the CPS were seeking to make an example of them to prevent further direction against Israeli arms manufacturing in the UK.
I think it should not be controversial to call this a major abuse of power by the Government and a misuse of terrorism legislation.
Legislation written for good reason to enable the Government to take unusual and extraordinary measures in a time of national crisis has been misused to brand a group of brave young people acting to save lives (there is a fair argument that they succeeded) as a danger to the public and an enemy of the British State. To say they are, when a jury has not been given an opportunity to pass judgement on that fact, is to undermine the rule of law in this Country. Hasn’t Ed Davey been extremely vocal recently about how the Rule of Law is a core British value and must be protected?
All this it to say: If the Liberal Democrats were to stand up for civil liberties, as they have so powerfully in years gone by, every Liberal Democrat MP would be up in arms about this. It is a travesty and a miscarriage of justice. The only MP who has meaningfully spoken out about this is Zarah Sultana.
I’m getting sick of this Party sitting by and refusing to have an opinion on serious matters of state which are against its founding principles. This authoritarian Labour Government is pressing ahead with digital surveillance and reducing the sacrosanct role of juries in our justice system, and our Party leadership won’t touch it. Our Party leadership is too worried about losing the votes of pearl-clutching Surrey Tories to stand up for what’s right. Refusal to have an opinion about anything remotely controversial is, in my view, a major reason for our underperformance in the recent local elections.
It needs to change.
Correction: I must also acknowledge the harm that was caused to Sgt. Kate Evans by defendant Sam Corner. It would be dishonest of me not to acknowledge the injuries she sustained in the course of doing her duty, and Corner’s conviction as a result.
* Tara Foster is a LibDem campaigner from Southampton. She sits on the LGBT+ LibDems Executive as an Ordinary Member and is a prominent member of the Radical Association.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Other parties shouldn't play Farage's game
"Ahaarrrr!" A voiceover session from hell
Day 9319: Mr Froggy's Vanity Election
Government should block Nigel Farage's resignation - Ed Davey
Let's be honest. Regeneration of some areas will take decades
Roland
Jana
paul barker
Peter Martin
Paul Walter
29 Comments
The terroism issue is in the Court of Appeal today.
A woman police officer had her back broken.
@ Tara,
You’re absolutely right.
“The real kicker for me has been that despite the offence was ruled to be not terrorism, the defendants were not being tried for a terrorism offence …. ”
moreover they weren’t convicted of terrorism by the court itself but they were by the judge and sentenced accordingly. They should have been sentenced for what they were charged with.
This case reminds me of two activists who used a “greater good” charge to secure an acquittal some nine years ago. This Labour government doesn’t want this kind of defence to become the norm. So, one tactic will be is try activists on a lesser charge and then sentence them for something more serious. This is bad law if nothing else. In future, any defence brief who’s worth his salt, will raise the possibility that there is a hidden charge of terrorism lurking even when there may not be and hope to secure an acquittal that way.
The Labour party has form for the erosion of legal principles. The removal of the double jeopardy being one. At one time the police might use strong arm methods to extract false confessions. Now any not guilty verdict can be overturned by the simple method of “finding” a DNA sample in the evidence store that somehow had been “missed” previously.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-41763568
I think it’s a real shame that so many people have attached themselves to this one group and their violent actions.
Quite simply we cannot have a situation in this country where we accept political violence if we happen to agree with the perpetrators. Putting vital defence equipment (needed to defend against Russia) out of use, assaulting police with sledgehammers and destroying resources for Ukraine.
That prohibition has got to be universal- it can’t be a case of we happen to agree with this particular group’s ideology so they can do as they please.
We would absolutely not accept a situation where Yaxley-Lennon and his cronies organised and then smashed up hotels and Border Force facilities. They would argue the same as Palestine Action have that their actions are justified by the ‘greater good’.
They would rightly be charged and convicted.
The Judges ruling undermines the whole basis of Jury Trial, the Keystone of our Rights. The defendants were charged with one crime & Sentenced for another. It’s like being Tried for Burglary & then being Sentenced for Murder. It’s just the sort of thing we expect in Dictatorships.
If our Parliamentarians are not prepared to challenge this perhaps We need to change The Party Name – drop the Liberal & Democrat bits anyway.
There is also a lot of misinformation being spread by the far-left about the ‘terrorist connection’ point.
Juries convict an accused person (or don’t). The judge then determines an appropriate sentence- including a range of factors like previous offending, age, level of remorse. Indeed, a discount was applied in this case as it was deemed a crime of conscience.
One of those as set out in legislation is where an action aims to intimidate people or change government policy to advance a political view. That is quite clearly the case here.
I agree with Tara (without necessarily supporting what the PA activists did). It was wrong to proscribe PA as terrorists, and in any case that happened *after* the Elbit break-in. And the judicial goal-post moving by the Judge is a very worrying development, in which the jury played no part.
When you look at the recent tally of arrests, does this look right to you?
Southampton Riots – 11
“Unite the Kingdom” demo – 43
Belfast Riots – 19
Palestine Action Demo – 500
Only the latter is “terrorism related”….
Striking that the author has nothing to say about the police officer attacked with a sledgehammer. It seems quite simple – if you don’t want to go to prison, dont go armed with weapons and attack a police officer.
In fact the author has completely misunderstood how the sentencing works. Its no business of the jury to decide on the sentence – their job is guilt of innocence.
the terrorism connection also made little difference to the sentence – which is well below the maximum it might have been. There is a good explanation here :
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists
And yet millions of people have managed to protest against Israel’s actions without getting arrested.
It’s almost like expressing support for a group that impedes our ability to defend against Russia, attacks police with sledgehammers and destroys equipment required by Ukraine has very foreseeable consequences.
A sentence of seven years and eight months for fracturing a police officer’s spine with a sledgehammer seems completely appropriate.
Palastine is one of those – as a labour MP put it – middle class hobby horse subject. If a mother of one gets gets 31 months for an awful tweet that was deleted after a few hours. Let’s not be surprised if perpetrators carry out £1.2 millions worth of damage including ploughing a 7.5 ton truck through a set of gates, smashing up private property , intimidating security guards, fracturing a policewomans spine. Get a substantial custodial sentence.
@ John Smith,
“We would absolutely not accept a situation where Yaxley-Lennon and his cronies organised and then smashed up hotels and Border Force facilities..”
You’re rather missing the point.
The argument is that everyone, and this would include ‘Mr Y-L and his cronies’, has the right to a fair trial.
All convictions and sentences should be based on charges brought by the CPS and the subsequent verdicts of the juries and courts. No one should be tried on a lesser charge and then found guilty of a more serious charge purely on the opinion of the trial judge.
Am I on a different planet?
This was a group action.
You break in smashing the gates with a prison van, you each carry sledgehammers. Over 1million pounds worth of damage is committed and one of the group fractures a woman police sergeants spine with a sledgehammer action
What would the Polanski,s of this world say if it had been a Tommy Robinson group who undertook such actions.
As a responsible political party we have to be seen upholding the law. It is arguable that the women defendants could have received some reduction but the male in my mind has got off lightly!!
It is almost akin to anarchy.
The late addition : “I must also acknowledge the harm that was caused to Sgt. Kate Evans by defendant Sam Corner”.
Let’s be clear, “the harm” is somewhat of a euphemism when one realises that a young woman had her spine broken twice when attacked from behind with a sledge hammer by a young man to the point when now she can no longer carry out her duties as a police sergeant. One can only wonder what her long term future will be.
An aggravating factor singled out by the judge was that the offenders were on the premises as trespassers: they “used extreme force and aggression to break in, deliberately using a large vehicle as an instrument of destruction, driving the van through two security fences and through the shutter of the loading bay”…
So, had they ‘tip-toed’ into the secure building, should the sentences have been less?
As for the ‘terrorism factor’, that was NOT part of the original charge and should not have been an aggravating factor (whether or not it resulted in any increase in sentencing). Had the ‘terrorism’ factor been part of the initial charge the jury may well have reached a different verdict…
Criminal damage and the assault on the police officer should have been the ONLY factors in the sentence..
@Peter Martin
Good thing that isn’t what happened then.
Juries don’t have a role in sentencing. The judge decides a sentence in any case based on a range of factors- including age, previous convictions and level of remorse.
One of those factors is whether an act has a terrorist connection under the criteria set out in law.
This group were trying to intimidate people and change government policy by using serious violence and property damage, so those criteria were met.
Quoting from today’s Appeal Court ruling:-
“Ammori had challenged the ban on the argument that the-then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had not followed her own internal rules – and that the ban also amounted to a serious interference with the right to protest……..”
It seems to me the level of violence used against the police officer whose spine was fractured justified severe sentences.
Since when did the right to protest peacefully justify the carrying of implements – sledgehammers – which could easily be used to commit grievous bodily harm or manslaughter?
@ Chloe,
“Palastine (sic) is one of those – as a labour MP put it – middle class hobby horse subject. ”
I’d be probably be described as “Middle Class” these days but there was a time in my childhood and teens when I definitely wasn’t! I wasn’t upper class either! 🙂 My father really was an industrial factory worker.
Would I have been concerned about the deaths of 100,000 + people in Gaza and now several thousand more in Lebanon, Iran and on the West bank? Well yes I would if my concern then about the deaths of Vietnamese citizens is anything to go by
Many of the younger people on Palestine marches are very much like we were on those Vietnam marches. They don’t look like they are from the money classes either. Some might be. It’s hard to tell. It doesn’t matter providing their heart is in the right place.
@ Theakes @ Nonconformistradical
You, too, are both missing the point. If the protesters were possibly guilty of grievous bodily harm, or whatever, then this is what they should have been charged with and tried accordingly.
The judge in the case clearly shifted the goalposts after the trial and failed to allow the protesters, and the counsel, the right to defend themselves against a charge of terrorism.
The British Government in the First World War (led by successive Liberal Prime Ministers) imprisoned over 6,000 conscientious objectors who were protesting against the war and refusing to join the armed forces. The sentences often included ‘with hard labour’.
At least 73 of these prisoners died because of lack of nutrition or the impact of hard labour. But, there is no evidence that any of the objectors physically ever attacked any police officers (female or male) in any way, let alone with a 7lb sledge hammer.
There’s protesting and protesting, Tara.
He was found guilty of grievous bodily harm without intent, if she had died it would have been manslaughter.
@Peter Martin
As far as I am concerned the terrorism issuue is not relevant to my point. My point is that the level of violence used against the police officer whose spine was fractured justified severe sentences.
https://www.harrissolicitors.org.uk/post/what-are-the-sentencing-guidelines-for-gbh
“One example involved a man charged under Section 18 for deliberately assaulting someone at a pub, resulting in severe facial injuries. He received a 12-year sentence due to the premeditated nature of the attack”
In my view the carrying and use of the sledgehammer puts the offence into the category in the quote.
@ Nonconformistradical.
So you’re saying that the correct sentence was imposed albeit for the wrong reasons.
You could be right about the sentence. But we’ll never know for sure just how the jury would have responded had the CPS and Judge been upfront from the start.
Palestine Action have never claimed to be a Protest group, they are a Direct Action campaign, aiming to actually stop Arms firms supplying Israel. I don’t support them but they are not Terrorists. One of the activists in this case used violence, the others didn’t.
If we allow Criminal Damage to be reframed as Terrorism then that could include painting slogans on walls, putting up posters or occupying empty buildings.
Paul; This wasn’t daubing the outside of Barclays bank with red paint. It was a sustained attack on private property causing over a million pounds in damage – by individuals that were armed with sledgehammers , gained access through driving a 7 ton wagon smashing gates and barriers threatening security guards , breaking the spine of a female responding police officer.
Those individuals are where they belong, in a prison cell for a considerable period of time .
In the 1950s and 1960s a far-left political activist in a British-allied country
– was funded by various communist nations, especially the USSR, as a member of various banned and sometimes terrorist-designated organisations
– organised a major campaign of sabotage against military, power and transport infrastructure, including a large number of bombings
– was prepared to move to full-scale guerilla warfare if the sabotage failed to achieve its political aims, and received training and funding for this
– met with Jo Grimond on a trip to raise support for his cause in the UK
He was arrested, tried, and sentenced to life imprisonment – although he was eventually released in the 1990s.
Often worth considering, when the present UK government is willing to put the “terrorist” designation on peaceful protestors, minor and amateurish property damage, and similar. Thatcher would have approved, I’m sure.
I think it’s worth reposting this link, which Simon McGrath submitted yesterday morning: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists
I suspect most of the other comments which ignore this were submitted before Simon’s had been posted.
It does cast rather important light on the jury’s verdict and the judge’s sentencing:
The activists were not convicted of terrorism offences; they were convicted of causing criminal damage.
The judge adopted a starting point for sentencing of five years, which is half the maximum set for this offence by parliament. He then took into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
Since 2021, for any offence with a maximum sentence of more than two years, a terrorist connection must be treated as an aggravating factor. Terrorism is defined to include serious damage to property that is designed to influence the government for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause.
As for the jury not having been told about this, it was the defendants who asked for it to be kept from the jury.
So basically the appeal seems to be “The sentencing was not fair because the jury weren’t told something that we asked the judge not to tell the jury.”
Driving a van at high speed through a garage door being reckless as to whether there is anyone standing behind the door, is not peaceful protest.
Smashing a police officer’s spine with a sledgehammer is not peaceful protest.
I can’t believe that either of these points are up for debate.
If the Basic reading comprehension of most commentators on here is representative of the party as a whole, then it’s no wonder that the party should be stuck in 5th and have no idea how to get out!
This article is not about whether these people broke the law or should go to jail, nor is it about whether the judge technically had the power to sentence them as terrorists. The article is instead arguing that it’s problematic to sentence them as terrorists when they were not convicted of terrorism.
It appears to me that the writer of this article didn’t think these people should have gone to prison at all. It would be helpful if they could clarify.
My interpretation wasn’t helped by the fact that they initially omitted any reference to the sledgehammer assault on the PC.