Every Monday and Tuesday, Westminster Magistrates Court is on high alert, as it fills with dozens of ordinary citizens accused of supporting terrorism, summoned to register their pleas. The court manages to process a few dozen each week, but with more than 2000 arrested so far, this looks like it could take months.
On Monday morning, four groups went in front of Judge Nina Tempia – she didn’t seem happy.
In the first group of five, one had messaged they were ill, and another had simply not turned up. So in the dock went a middle-aged woman and two younger men. Each gave their name, address and date of birth, and then their indictments were read out to them in a musical Italian accent by a court clerk sporting a decidedly dapper moustache. Each was accused under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 that they had on the 9th August 2025 displayed an article in such a way as to arouse suspicion that they were a member or a supporter of a proscribed terrorist organisation, namely Palestine Action.
Two pleaded not guilty, but then it was the turn of Elliot, who instead began a speech describing the proscription as a dangerous and corrupt ruling. Judge Tempia warned that they would be removed from the court as she would not listen to anything other than a plea, then she rose and left the room. By then, Elliot had pulled a Palestinian flag from their pocket, and as security escorted them out, they handed it to the other two defendants in the dock. When the judge returned, she asked them to “remove the symbol”. As both remained defiant, she left the court again, and they too, were removed from the court room.
On her return, the second group’s hearing was less eventful and the judge gave standard directions as to when evidence must be disclosed, defences raised and so on prior to trial. She gave unconditional bail to all defendants, and set trial dates later in the year at Stratford Magistrates Court.
The third group was delayed due to a muddle among court staff, but finally five people sat in the dock. When asked to confirm their details one woman explained to the judge that she opposes genocide, but she stopped just short of being removed. Asked for their pleas, the first three stated they were not guilty, and the fourth, who is the writer and sustainability campaigner Jonathan Porritt, stands and announces that he will enter his plea but that first he wants to make a statement in support of the people of Palestine. The judge dives out of the court again, and Mr Porritt is removed by court security.
On the judge’s return, the fifth defendant, who has had to travel down from Scotland for this hearing, also begins a short speech before plea, but stops and waits as the judge flees yet again. There is a further delay while the rather overworked security staff take some time to return and she calls out “Free Palestine” as they escort her out. As the rest of the group file out, one shouts “History will judge us all – Free Palestine”.
As part of the legal process, defendants are asked to fill in a form in order to aid case management. There is a short pause for a discussion between the judge and the Crown prosecutor about issues raised – many of the defendants have refused to provide email addresses. This means evidence against them cannot be delivered, and they will have to be shown bodycam and other CCTV footage at the trial. Others have raised legal issues, such as contesting the Attorney General’s proscription of Palestine Action. Most of those on trial are unrepresented ‘Litigants In Person’, and the judge refuses requests for arresting officers to attend as witnesses, on the basis that all the evidence is in the footage. Her intention is to allow just 35 minutes for each defendant’s subsequent hearing, and she announces “in open court for the benefit of those still here” that credit will be given for guilty pleas, and that the trial can continue without the defendant if they don’t attend.
The last group of the morning includes a well-spoken Westminster resident who is represented by a Bindman’s lawyer. It appears that he was seen with a folded sign – the arresting officer’s notes suggest that he could see the words ‘Palestine’ and ‘Genocide’, and so the defence challenge whether this could reasonably ‘arouse suspicion’ of support for a terrorist organisation. The judge accepts that the officer will have to be called as a witness.
The first three defendants plea not guilty. The fourth, retired GP Stuart, begins his response with the words “I am struggling to know how to reply…” – the judge reacts by calling out “I am going to enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf” as she rises and leaves yet again.
On her return, Judge Tempia hears the not guilty plea from the ‘folded banner’ defendant, and another Monday morning’s legal pantomime comes to an end. We’ve all had a small workout, including the counter-terrorism police sitting in the back row, because each time the judge reappears, we all have to stand in deference.
All the defendants receive moral and practical support from several volunteers organised by Defend Our Juries, and they tell me that every Monday and Tuesday for the past few weeks and for the foreseeable future, they witness similar ridiculous scenes at Westminster court, all because of Yvette Cooper’s increasingly contested decision to proscribe Palestine Action, as well as the Labour government’s refusal to overturn it.
Last week’s verdicts in the long Filton trial clearly demonstrated that the public is not on side with the government’s narrative, and an underfunded justice system really should not be wasting so much time and money on this weekly circus – a direct consequence of lobbying by a foreign government and by a weapons manufacturer clearly complicit in genocide.
At time of writing we still await the decision of the judicial review which was heard at the High Court at the end of November. Judge Tempia must surely agree her time could be better spent, as must the counter-terrorism police rising and sitting like yo-yos at the rear of the court. Terrorism legislation has a long history of state misuse, but applying them in this way to peaceful protest utterly undermines any semblance of remaining legitimacy.
