On Sunday 17 August, campaign group Defend Our Juries levelled a contempt of court complaint against the home secretary Yvette Cooper over an article in the Observer. Notably, this was after she made repeated insinuations that the government proscribed Palestine Action because of violence against people.

Yvette Cooper’s Observer article: more lies from the home secretary

Defend Our Juries addressed the complaint to attorney general Richard Hermer KC MP.

In the Observer on Sunday, Cooper penned a piece titled Yvette Cooper: Palestine Action’s violent criminality is not lawful protest. In this, she said:

Demonstrating is vital to free speech but this right does not extend to violence, intimidation and inflicting injuries

However, as the documentary record disclosed in the legal proceedings before the High Court makes clear, the basis for the proscription was damage to property, specifically damage to the weapons Elbit Systems UK supplies to the Israeli military.

The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) actually advised that:

In support of its aims and objectives, the group primarily uses direct action tactics, the majority of which would not constitute an act of terrorism as defined under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on the basis that any damage to property is typically more minor. Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons.

It also noted that Palestine Action:

media channels highly likely will only share footage, or encourage, instances of property damage. PA branded media will highly unlikely explicitly advocate for violence against persons.

Moreover, the Proscription Review Group (PRG) advised that a ban on Palestine Action would be “novel and unprecedented”, because:

there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property.

Out of nearly 500 Palestine Action actions since 2020, there is an allegation before the courts that in one of those actions, which took place over a year ago, the arrest process became violent, resulting in an injury to a police officer. However, Defend Our Juries highlighted that these are in fact “contested allegations”. Crucially, these have yet to be tested in a court of law. Yet Yvette Cooper alleged them in her Observer column, regardless.

Constituting contempt of court: prejudicing the jury

In its letter to Attorney General, Defend Our Juries said of Yvette Cooper and her Observer column:

It is not only disingenuous to present this isolated case as characteristic of Palestine Action, it is a contempt of court that prevents fair trials of those who stand accused. Yvette Cooper’s comments have been widely publicised, such that it would be impossible to find a jury unaffected by them.

We are not naïve regarding the political obstacles to commencing contempt of court proceedings against the Home Secretary.

But if the rule of law means anything, it is that no-one is above the law, most particularly the rich and powerful, such as Elbit Systems UK and Yvette Cooper. It is particularly egregious for a Home Secretary to abuse their office in this way, to present a false and misleading picture of those who face serious criminal charges.

Cooper referred to Israel’s starvation and slaughter of the Palestinian people as “crimes against humanity” in her Observer article. She wrote that:

So anyone who wants to protest against the catastrophic humanitarian situation and crimes against humanity in Gaza, to oppose Israel’s military offensive, or to criticise the actions of any and every government, including our own, has the freedom to do so.

So far as Defend Our Juries are aware, this is the first time the government has formally recognised that Israel is committing crimes against humanity.

This recognition comes with profound consequences in terms of the legal obligations that ensue.

In closing, Defend Our Juries said they will draw their letter to the attention of the legal representatives of those facing trial – known as the Filton 24.  They told the attorney general that they would be grateful for an early response to their letter “given the implications”.

Ultimately, the group argued that:

Palestine Action were not proscribed for their own violence, but for exposing the Government’s complicity, when they spray-painted those planes at Brize Norton, drawing attention to the daily RAF flights to Gaza, in support of the perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

Featured image via the Canary