Yvette Cooper is in contempt of court says Defend our Juries
JVL Introduction
Defend our Juries continue its sterling work in opposing the government’s outrageous proscription of Palestine Action.
Their latest move it to write to the Attorney General accusing Yvette Cooper of contempt of court for an article by her published in the Observer on 17 August.
In passing they commend her for one thing: describing Israel’s starvation and slaughter of the Palestinian people as ‘crimes against humanity’ .
The letter, reposted below, explains precisely why she is accused of contempt.
RK
Richard Hermer KC MP
Attorney General
102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9EA
[email protected]
cc: [email protected]
17 August 2025
Dear Richard Hermer KC
YVETTE COOPER, CONTEMPT OF COURT
We write to bring to your attention a contempt of court committed by the Home Secretary, in her article in the Observer today, concerning Palestine Action. Before turning to the detail of the complaint, we will set the relevant context.
Government ‘reassures’ Elbit Systems over Palestine Action
Defend Our Juries is a civil liberties movement which aims to expose and challenge the cynical and concerted programme of state measures to prevent juries reaching the ‘wrong’ verdicts in cases which embarrass the government and its corporate sponsors, in particular those in the oil and arms industries.
The programme followed a series of jury acquittals in cases concerning Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action over the last few years. These acquittals prompted a series of meetings between representatives for the Israeli government, Elbit Systems and UK Government Ministers, see eg:
Excerpt from 2023 meeting
There followed the withdrawal of previously available legal defences under the Criminal Damage Act, including on reference to the Court of Appeal from the Attorney General’s Office. In consequence, those on trial were prevented from explaining to the jury their motivations for taking action. With defendants banned from putting their side of the story, the rate of acquittals inevitably dropped.
The proscription of Palestine Action despite (or because of) jury acquittals
Instead of listening to the message of jury acquittals of Palestine Action, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has gone to the other extreme – proscribing as ‘terrorists’, those that juries were previously acquitting (if allowed to hear the evidence).
Misleading presentation of the grounds of proscription
Under pressure, Yvette Cooper has begun actively misleading the public over the grounds for the proscription. In The Observer today, she insinuates that Palestine Action were proscribed for violence against people:
“Yvette Cooper: ‘Palestine Action’s violent criminality is not lawful protest’
Demonstrating is vital to free speech but this right does not extend to violence, intimidation and inflicting injuries”
As the record of the documentary record makes clear, disclosed in the legal proceedings before the High Court, the basis for the proscription was damage to property, specifically damage to the weapons Elbit Systems UK supplies to the Israeli military.
That is why Proscription Review Group (PRG) advised that a ban on Palestine Action would be
“novel and unprecedented”, because “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) advised that:
“In support of its aims and objectives, the group primarily uses direct action tactics, the majority of which would not constitute an act of terrorism as defined under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on the basis that any damage to property is typically more minor. Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons”
“PA media channels highly likely will only share footage, or encourage, instances of property damage. PA branded media will highly unlikely explicitly advocate for violence against persons”.
Out of nearly 500 Palestine Action actions since 2020, there is an allegation before the courts, that in one of those actions, which took place over a year ago, the arrest process became violent, resulting in an injury to a police officer.
Comments prevent a fair trial
It is not only disingenuous to present this isolated case as characteristic of Palestine Action, it is a contempt of court that prevents fair trials of those who stand accused. Yvette Cooper’s comments have been widely publicised, such that it would be impossible to find a jury unaffected by them. Her comments have irreparably prejudiced the jury in three ways.
First, when the jury hears the prosecution case, they may be struck by the consistency with Yvette Cooper’s description of the character of Palestine Action, and therefore conclude that the allegations are likely to be true. The reality is that the allegations are wholly out of character for the group, and correspondingly less likely to be true.
Second, by presenting the prosecution allegations to the public as matters of established fact, when they are in reality contested allegations, she has prejudiced the jury in terms of the outcome of their deliberations, using her office to imply that the outcome is not seriously in doubt, i.e. that a not guilty verdict would be the ‘wrong’ outcome.
Third, by making vague, unsubstantiated allegations, regarding intelligence concerning future attacks (“Nor does it reflect disturbing information given to me that covered ideas and planning for future attacks”), she risks the jury basing their decisions otherwise than in accordance with the evidence.
The rule of law means no-one is above the law
We are not naïve regarding the political obstacles to commencing contempt of court proceedings against the Home Secretary.
But if the rule of law means anything, it is that no-one is above the law, most particularly the rich and powerful, such as Elbit Systems UK and Yvette Cooper. It is particularly egregious for a Home Secretary to abuse their office in this way, to present a false and misleading picture of those who face serious criminal charges.
Crimes against humanity
We commend Yvette Cooper on one feature of her article today. She refers to Israel’s starvation and slaughter of the Palestinian people as ‘crimes against humanity’ (“So anyone who wants to protest against the catastrophic humanitarian situation and crimes against humanity in Gaza, to oppose Israel’s military offensive, or to criticise the actions of any and every government, including our own, has the freedom to do so.”)
So far as we are aware, this is the first time the Government has formally recognised what we can all see to be true, that Israel is committing crimes against humanity.
We do not need to remind you of the profound consequences of that recognition, in terms of the legal obligations that ensue.
Palestine Action were not proscribed for their own violence, but for exposing the Government’s complicity, when they spray-painted those planes at Brize Norton, drawing attention to the daily RAF flights to Gaza, in support of the perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
Communication with lawyers regarding prejudice
We will draw this letter to the attention of the legal representatives of those facing trial. Given the implications we would be grateful for your early response.
Yours sincerely,
Defend Our Juries.
The other mechanism that the British State uses to avoid jury acquittal is simply not to put them in court, keeping them imprisoned without trial. The Filton 18 have been held for over a year.
Excellent.
And if establishment politicians genuinely practised representative democracy, there would be less need for direct action.
Excellent work, Defend Our Juries. I eagerly look forward to Mrs. Balls’ response.
Wow! What a brilliant letter! And continuing to draw attention to the key issue of genocide. Both the ex-PA people and PSC have ensured no attacks on each other but rather both focusing on the genocide and the efforts by the British state to repress those supporting Palestinians.
What amazes me about Yvette Cooper and the vast majority of Labour MP’s is that they lack basic political intuition. Can you imagine old style Tories like Harold Macmillan ever even thinking that OAP’s were violent terrorists?
A very well-argued letter by Defend our Juries.
Perhaps the positioning of the Home Secretary could have something to do with the number of Labour MPs who are “Labour Friends of Israel” and her own relationship with this group.
We have to go way back to the 18th century to find such a concerted attempt by government in the UK and elsewhere among the so-called ‘democracies’ to use punitive measures to suppress the expression of opinions solely on the grounds that they make the government uncomfortable. This feels like a monster that we thought had died, but in fact was only sleeping. It is yet one more of the many signs that Starmer’s Labour Party has thrown away every last ounce of respect or concern for the electorate.
The glitch that stopped our site also stopped the email notifications which are driven by the same system