REPORTING restrictions are fairly common practice in criminal cases in the UK.
Primarily, they are used to protect the identities of the victims of sexual abuse, and there are other applications widely considered to be fairly innocuous.
But the case against Palestine Action activists who broke into an Elbit Systems factory to protest the genocide in Gaza has for many raised serious questions about freedom of speech and the rule of law in the UK.
Those involved describe a “stitch-up” and allege a “sinister agenda” on the part of the state.
Chief among their concerns is the imposition of a restriction some reckon is unprecedented in UK legal history.
Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were earlier this month found guilty of criminal damage for the raid at the Israeli arms firm.
Elbit Systems has previously denied supplying the Israeli military with weapons.
Corner was also found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm to police sergeant Kate Evans after striking her twice with a sledgehammer during the break-in at the factory outside Bristol in 2024.
What makes the case so unusual is that, despite the fact that the four were tried as common criminals, they could be sentenced as terrorists – something the jury was never told and the media was banned from reporting.
This is despite the raid taking place before the proscription of Palestine Action under terror laws, which was later ruled unlawful, though the matter has not been legally settled as yet.
Reporting restrictions, now lifted, were put in place which banned the media from reporting on the terrorism connection. All those in the court were also banned from informing the jury that the verdict they delivered would potentially be used to sentence the young people as terrorists, not common criminals.
Having caused criminal damage totalling an estimated £1 million, the three people found guilty on that charge could have expected to walk free from court in ordinary circumstances.
Head, Kamio and Rajwani had already served 18 months in prison by that point, and so had the judge decided on a custodial sentence, they may have been considered to have done their time.
But with the court able to make a “terrorist connection” in their cases, they face much harsher punishments, including years of state monitoring.
Additionally, there is concern about attempts to find a lawyer who represented activists in the first trial – in which none were convicted – in contempt of court.
Rajiv Menon KC informed jurors of their right to acquit defendants according to their conscience, a principle so foundational to English law, it is commemorated on a plaque outside the Old Bailey.
While he won a small victory on a technical point of law, there is still a chance he could face proceedings, about which the Bar Council representing English barristers has expressed concern.
