A judge in the trial of four Palestine Action activists has refused to remove himself from the case following a request from the defence amid accusations of “prejudicial bias”.

A judge in the trial of four Palestine Action activists has refused to remove himself from the case following a request from the defence amid accusations of “prejudicial bias”.

Justice Johnson apologised in court on Monday for the way he handled his unprecedented attempt to have the lead defence barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, prosecuted for contempt of court – a move described as “troubling” by the Bar Council.

The court of appeal last month ruled that the judge had wrongly referred the contempt of court case directly to the high court, instead of to the attorney general.

“I was wrong to do that and I’m sorry about that, of course,” Justice Johnson said on Monday. “I’m sorry it has meant this will now take longer than it would have done.”

But he refused the defendants’ request to recuse himself from the trial.

Menon KC faced the contempt proceedings after he allegedly defied the judge’s order by informing the jury in a previous trial of the four activists that they had a right to acquit based on their conscience.

In the latest trial, the jury found Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona (Ellie) Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, guilty of criminal damage. Corner was also convicted of GBH without intent.

But Justice Johnson is set to sentence them as terrorists, an unprecedented move that was kept secret from the jury during the trial, while the media was banned from reporting on it. He will add a ‘terrorist connection’ to the charges under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Campaign group Defend Our Juries said in a statement: “Today, during a hearing at the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Johnson heard an application made by four defendants to recuse himself from their case on the grounds of his prejudicial bias, evidenced through both of their trials.”

The statement continued: “The only safeguard in place for a judge who ignores the jury’s verdict is to rely on that judge recusing themself. It’s not likely to surprise anyone that this is not what happened today. These four young people face being sentenced as terrorists despite not being convicted of terror offences and not being found guilty of intentional violence.”

From Novara Media via This RSS Feed.