What price British justice? State v Palestine Action

In August I took part in one of the first organised acts of mass defiance against the Labour Government’s most Orwellian move to date. Palestine Action is a non violent direct action group protesting UK complicity in genocide by, inter alia, sabotaging firms in Britain which enable it. Leaving aside the criminality of Labour and Conservative governments, Palestine Action’s offences – criminal trespass and aggravated damage – are and always have been punishable under pre-existing laws. Calling a peaceful organisation terrorist, alongside Murder Maniacs Cult and ISIS, was an egregious affront. On that August mass defiance, and on several since, over two thousand law abiding citizens have been arrested for holding up signs like this:

Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori mounted a legal bid to overturn a ban under anti-terrorist legislation sold to the public as vital to public safety – not to protect war crime profits – of a group peacefully disrupting ongoing mass murder abetted by the British State in flagrant violation of international law.

This appeal is now being heard at London’s Royal Court of Justice. Yesterday a pal alerted me to a November 25 FB post by one Philip George. It’s self explanatory and brief. Over to Mr George.

A Judicial “Trump Like” Twist Starmer Style

R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Claim No: AC-2025-LON-002122

Yesterday, Mr Justice Martin Chamberlain was running the show. Today, he has been unceremoniously yanked off the case without explanation. The government has replaced him with a hand picked panel of three judges, and you probably haven’t heard a word about it on national television. Welcome to the cucumber sandwich version of authoritarianism.

Hot off the press and an essential read for anyone who cares about democracy, due process, or simply prefers that their government does not behave like it is auditioning for a bargain basement authoritarian reboot.

If you still believed Britain had at least one functioning institution, gather round. The High Court has just staged a manoeuvre so brazen, so shiny with executive fingerprints, that even Donald Trump might squint and mutter, “Bit on the nose, isn’t it?”

Here is the punchline: yesterday, Mr Justice Chamberlain issued an order managing what information could be published about police investigations into Elbit Systems UK and Instro Precision and the government’s proscription decision on Palestine Action. A perfectly routine judicial exercise.

Tomorrow, he will not be judging the case. No scheduling conflicts. No illness. Nothing. The Ministry of Justice simply ghosted the public. Gone, reassigned, or otherwise vanished from the courtroom just as his orders were about to take effect.

And yet there is scarcely a mention on national television or in the newspapers, despite the extraordinary nature of the interference. The Guardian, in a brief report buried in its legal affairs section, described the removal as “deeply concerning” while providing no explanation from the Ministry of Justice, which referred questions to a press office that refused to comment. A panel of three judges will now hear the case instead of Chamberlain.

This is not an isolated incident. Earlier this year, the same judge was removed from a judicial review concerning Britain’s sale of F-35 aircraft parts to Israel, another case in which he had initially granted permission. The pattern is clear. The Starmer government appears to prefer judges who follow the script rather than those who might actually apply the law.

Meet the Replacement Trio

Dame Victoria Sharp
From a family with deep Conservative links. Twin sister of former BBC Chair Richard Sharp, who helped secure a substantial private loan for Boris Johnson. Known for jailing climate activists and ordering Carole Cadwalladr to pay Aaron Banks one million pounds. Credentials polished until they gleam.

Next day update. See Asa Winstanley’s November 28 piece on how Sharp’s twin brother worked for Israel spy and pensions fund thief, Robert Maxwell. Writes Winstanley:

“As a barrister in the 1980s, Victoria Sharp was instructed by Mishcon de Reya, a law firm which later represented the Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the UK and has worked to fight boycotts of Israel in the courts.”

Dame Karen Steyn
Part of the duo who replaced Chamberlain in the F-35 case. Ruled in favour of Israel while nodding politely at international law. A reliably state friendly pair of hands.

Sir Jonathan Swift
Former government lawyer for eight years. Rejected Julian Assange’s appeal against extradition. Decisions align with the state with the consistency of a compass needle pointing north.

This is not merely a panel. It is a carefully curated outcome.

The Trump Parallel

Trump always fantasised about bending the judiciary to suit his political whims. Starmer’s government appears to be practicing the same art with British politeness: the cucumber sandwich version of executive overreach.

Instead of tweeting insults, they quietly remove the judge, offer no explanation, and roll out a panel chosen to deliver the desired outcome while reciting the appropriate constitutional phrases. Trumpism without the orange makeup. Authoritarianism with better tailoring.

The Blunt Reality

A ruling from this trio will be presented as neutral and judicial. Everyone can see the strings. Everyone can see the choreography.

This is a desperate attempt to give legal respectability to an indefensible political act: the criminalisation of protest so sweeping it ensnares priests, doctors, former military officers, barristers, Holocaust survivors, and even a former adviser to King Charles, all of whom publicly supported Palestine Action.

The government is willing to redefine terrorism so broadly that it becomes meaningless or, worse, a tool for punishing dissent. A political decision dressed in robes, nothing more.

Verdict

No amount of judicial panel padding can disguise what this is: a sloppy, transparent, brittle stitch up. A pre-emptive authoritarian lunge dressed in legal clothes. A moment as dangerous to British democracy as anything seen in decades.

And it is happening now, quietly, while the tabloid media continue to portray judges as enemies of the people for doing their jobs. Post Brexit, judicial independence is slowly eroding, and judges themselves are aware that the right wing is watching, waiting, and ready to punish them for inconvenient rulings.

Hot off the press and an essential read. A sign that something fundamental in Britain is breaking and breaking fast.

If the government succeeds tomorrow, it will not just be Palestine Action facing criminalisation. It will be the very idea that citizens have the right to protest at all.

Welcome to Starmer era justice in real time: yesterday a judge was in control, today the government decided otherwise, and tomorrow the citizens may be next. Democracy, it seems, is on a very tight leash.

My sole carp is with that final paragraph. It credits too much agency to Starmer. Such an inroad into the hallowed separation of powers – executive, legislative, judicial – is nothing new. When the stakes are high enough, for the oligarchy which beneath a thinning veneer of democracy actually rules Britain, it will be set aside. Witness Blair’s 2006 intervention in the Saudi arms bribes affair and, more recently, the hounding (amply aided by liberal media) of one who, if our measure is the extent of state criminality exposed – and if not, why not? – may fairly be deemed history’s greatest journalist.

* * *