London’s Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) has hosted the second political prosecution of pro-Palestine protesters within the space of a month.

On April 11, a preliminary hearing was held for SOAS student Sarah—charged with inviting support for a proscribed organisation, Hamas, under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Last Friday, a preparatory hearing was held for the Filton 18—members of Palestine Action charged with damaging property at Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit System’s Filton site in Bristol.

A petition in their defence, now signed by over 52,000 people, notes that police have used powers under terrorism legislation to deny the accused the rights afforded other suspects and prisoners, despite none of them being charged with a terror offence: they were “held incommunicado in solitary confinement and interrogated constantly for a week without charge.”

On Friday, the judge noted his observation at an earlier stage of the proceedings that the case “appears to have a terrorist connection”.

For the purposes of this Act an offence has a terrorist connection if the offence—

(a)  is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism, or

(b) is committed for the purposes of terrorism.

“Terrorism” is defined by Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It encompasses “serious violence against a person” or “serious damage to property” which is carried out “for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause” by influencing “the government or international governmental organisations or to intimidate the public”.

If the accused are convicted and the court determines that their crimes do have a terrorist connection, then it will be treated as an aggravating factor, dramatically lengthening their sentences. They are charged with:

• aggravated burglary (standard sentences ranging from 1-13 years’ custody, with no statutory maximum);
• criminal damage (standard sentences ranging from 0-4 years’ custody, with a maximum of 10 years);
• violent disorder (standard sentences ranging from 0-4 years and 6 months’ custody, with a maximum of 5 years).

The defendants have plead not guilty, with the exception of Sean Middlebrough, who did not answer when asked to enter a plea last Friday. He and most other defendants were in attendance via videolink and struggled to hear the proceedings, with one telling the judge over an hour in, “almost every word is unintelligible.”

The state is using this draconian legislation, passed by the Blair Labour government, to make an example of protesters against the Gaza genocide. Every ruling and intervention made by the judge across the three-hour hearing Friday went in favour of the prosecution.

The first was to accept the prosecution’s invitation to declare the session a “preparatory hearing”.

Rajiv Menon KC, for the defence, noted that doing so had “no case management benefit” and that the court would “not be making substantial rulings of law on any contentious matters”. The decision’s only impact would be that the “custody time limit comes to an end”, allowing the Filton 18 to be kept in prison until trial if not bailed.

In some of the defendants’ cases, this is likely to be more than a year.

The trial is currently scheduled to be held at Woolwich Crown Court—the preferred venue for terrorism trials and in recent years hosting part of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition hearing.

Facilities at Woolwich are so constrained that only six defendants can be present at any one time, meaning three consecutive trials. According to the prosecution, these can each be expected to take 7-8 weeks, with start dates pencilled in for November 17, next April 7 and next June 15. Menon challenged the 7-8 week estimate, arguing more time would be required.

Without making a formal direction, the judge indicated he would favour the prosecution’s proposals, insisting that the case proceed “as efficiently and expeditiously as possible”. He pushed the multiple counsel representing the 18 defendants to consolidate their legal arguments, so that they were not all standing up “to say the same thing” come the trial.

Menon agreed with this to a point, but was firm that “each of the defendants… is entitled to have their counsel say what it is they wish to say,” noting that “There may well be points that I don’t develop as far as other counsel would wish them to be developed.”

On a related matter, Menon argued that the judge “needs to allow any defendant who wishes to attend in person to do so,” adding, “It cannot be right that on an issue as fundamental as this, that they cannot hear what is being said… otherwise it’s just not a fair process.”

The final issue heard on Friday was a bail application, which underscored the vindictiveness with which the prosecution of the Filton 18 is being pursued.

The applicant is accused of playing “a coordinating role” for the events at Filton, with the prosecution adding vaguely that it “does not exclude the possibility” she was present at the scene. The scanty evidence against her was gathered from a mobile phone “for which she is the subscriber”, showing “movements and travel consistent with the planning” of the Filton action.

According to the judge’s own summary, she is suffering “a number of mental health conditions” including “complex post-traumatic stress disorder, body dysmorphia, self-harm and suicidal ideation.” A forensic psychologist has evaluated that these symptoms have been triggered and exacerbated by the prison environment and that the risk of suicide is high.

Set to appear in the last of the three scheduled trials, the applicant faces more than a year of these conditions, after five months already inside.

The trial period itself will be particularly gruelling, since the female defendants are held at HMP Bronzefield far to the west of London. Menon noted earlier in the hearing that Woolwich was therefore the “worst possible court, quite frankly, to hold these trials,” with a total travel time of 4-5 hours in a police van between the two.

Under these circumstances, she was prepared to accept extremely onerous bail conditions, including a 6pm-6am curfew, electronic GPS monitoring, a ban on meeting with more than one person and on devices connected to the internet, plus any other restriction the court wished to impose.

But the judge ruled against bail on the basis that “there are substantial grounds for believing… she would commit further offences” and that no conditions would be strict enough to prevent this from happening.

The next hearing in the case will be held over two days on June 26-27 and will deal with the prosecution’s application to have a critical strand of the defence case withdrawn. These are the defences of “lawful excuse” or “necessity”.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 refers to damage to property “without lawful excuse”, namely, an honest belief that the owner of the property would have consented to its damage had they known the full circumstances. English common law also provides a defence for actions out of the necessity to prevent greater harm.

These arguments are very rarely accepted as valid by the court, but have provided a basis for juries to deliver “perverse” rulings against a judge’s direction based on their right to deliver a verdict according to their conscience. Multiple references by the defence on Friday to an extensive process of disclosure suggest the Filton 18 will be seeking evidence of Elbit’s contribution to the war crimes and genocide in Gaza in aid of this aspect of their case.