Legal experts accuse Palestine Action judge of bias, lawyers demand recusal
Thousands of lawyers and experts accuse Justice Jeremy Johnson of bias in a Palestine Action case, ahead of a recusal hearing and sentencing.
Intelligence analysis by GPT-5.4 Mini
A complaint signed by more than 3,000 people says the judge showed bias against Palestine Action defendants and the Palestinian cause. The challenge comes before a hearing on whether he should step aside before sentencing.
A group of lawyers says a judge in a protest case seems unfair and should step aside. They say his choices looked like he was already taking sides, like a referee who seems to favor one team before the game ends.
Analysis
The complaint
Legal experts, lawyers, academics, retired police officers, and magistrates are backing a formal complaint against Justice Jeremy Johnson, who is presiding over a Palestine Action case. The complaint, to be filed with the Judicial Conduct Office by Defend Our Juries, says Johnson showed a lack of objectivity and a hostile attitude toward the defendants and the Palestinian cause.
What the judge is accused of
The complaint argues that Johnson treated the defendants’ stated motivation for breaking into a factory as an aggravating factor at sentencing. It also says he indicated there was a “terrorist connection” in the case because the activists sought to influence the Israeli government by limiting access to weapons. According to the article, that terrorism link was not shown to the jury and will be decided by Johnson at sentencing.
The article says this could be the first time in British legal history that protesters are sentenced as terrorists without being convicted of terror offences or found guilty of intentional violence. It compares the situation to the only other sentencing on a terrorism connection basis cited in the piece, that of Ahmed Hassan.
Wider courtroom concerns
The complaint also points to Johnson’s referral of defence counsel Rajiv Menon KC for contempt of court, saying it hurt the defence and contributed to the defendants later representing themselves in closing arguments. It further argues that Johnson did not deal properly with public comments seen as prejudicial to the defence, including remarks by former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
In May, four defendants were convicted of criminal damage over a raid on an Elbit Systems plant near Bristol. Two others were cleared. The complaint says the judge’s remand decisions, after up to 18 months already spent in prison, were cruel and vindictive. A hearing on recusal is due on Monday, and sentencing is set for 12 June.
Key points
- More than 3,000 people signed a complaint accusing Justice Jeremy Johnson of bias and discriminatory conduct.
- Defend Our Juries plans to file the complaint before a hearing on whether Johnson should recuse himself.
- The article says the judge may sentence four defendants as terrorists, even though they were not convicted of terror offences.
- The complaint also criticizes his handling of defence counsel, prejudicial public statements, and remand decisions.
- A mass civil disobedience action is planned to coincide with sentencing on 12 June.
If the recusal challenge succeeds, the court could restore confidence that sentencing will be handled by a judge seen as impartial. That could also reduce claims that the case was used to make an example of the defendants.
If the judge stays on and proceeds with the terrorism-linked sentencing, the case may deepen claims of bias and fuel more protest. It could also raise broader concern that the legal line between protest and terrorism is being pushed too far.
