Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to
five years in prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
On 2026-06-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to
five years in prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and
Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
Assuming these are for "criminal damage", the sentencing appears to
be have achieved escape velocity from the sentencing guidelines and gone exoplanetary. The "highest culpability, highest harm" starting point is
18 months. Even allowing for this "the state can decide it's terrorism
with no need to prove it in a jury trial" bullshit, the sentences seem completely unjustifiable. I don't think the sentencing remarks are
available yet though.
quote:
Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21,
were convicted of criminal damage in a retrial after they broke into the Elbit
Systems factory near Bristol in August 2024.
Mr Justice Johnson said their actions had aimed to influence the government and
the group was sentenced on the basis the raid had a "terrorist connection".
Corner was jailed for seven years and eight months for criminal damage and inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police sergeant. The judge said he had no
justification for the "extreme and gratuitous force" used.
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to five years in
prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage
have been classified as connected to terrorism.
Due to the terrorist ruling, the offenders will not qualify for early release from prison provisions and the Parole Board will assess their risk to the public
when it determines when they can be set free.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o
Although the quote doesn't specify which Govt they were seeking to
influence, the idea that the Israeli Govt would have altered their
policy in respect of Gaza, in response to a raid on a factory in the UK
is clearly nonsense. Seeking to influence the UK Govt when it came
to issuing arms manufacturing licences is maybe another matter.
Although this isn't what HH Justice Johnson previously argued.
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
A total stitch up, IMO.
On 12/06/2026 20:28, billy bookcase wrote:
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
Normally, the judge decides how to apply the sentencing guidelines,
without any help from a jury. Why do you think that deciding whether
there's a terrorist aspect is fundamentally different from deciding that
a sentence is in category A, B or C, say?
You might want to compare this case with a death through dangerous
driving case. There, the range of sentencing is 2 rCo 18 yearsrCO custody, and that's entirely within the behest of the judge (with the COA looking over his shoulder, perhaps). That's a whole order of magnitude decided
by the judge without jury help.
On 12/06/2026 08:28 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
quote:
Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21,
were convicted of criminal damage in a retrial after they broke into the Elbit
Systems factory near Bristol in August 2024.
Mr Justice Johnson said their actions had aimed to influence the government and
the group was sentenced on the basis the raid had a "terrorist connection". >>
Corner was jailed for seven years and eight months for criminal damage and >> inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police sergeant. The judge said he had no
justification for the "extreme and gratuitous force" used.
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to five years
in
prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and Rajwani received a >> prison sentence of four years and eight months.
The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage
have been classified as connected to terrorism.
Due to the terrorist ruling, the offenders will not qualify for early release
from prison provisions and the Parole Board will assess their risk to the
public
when it determines when they can be set free.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o
Although the quote doesn't specify which Govt they were seeking to
influence, the idea that the Israeli Govt would have altered their
policy in respect of Gaza, in response to a raid on a factory in the UK
is clearly nonsense. Seeking to influence the UK Govt when it came
to issuing arms manufacturing licences is maybe another matter.
Although this isn't what HH Justice Johnson previously argued.
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
A total stitch up, IMO.
The (rather obviously) criminal damage is one thing. The attack upon a
police officer with a sledge-hammer (FFS!) is quite another. The
sentences are all justified simply on the basis of complicity in that.
On 13/06/2026 09:55, GB wrote:
On 12/06/2026 20:28, billy bookcase wrote:
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
Normally, the judge decides how to apply the sentencing guidelines,
without any help from a jury. Why do you think that deciding whether
there's a terrorist aspect is fundamentally different from deciding
that a sentence is in category A, B or C, say?
You might want to compare this case with a death through dangerous
driving case. There, the range of sentencing is 2 rCo 18 yearsrCO custody, >> and that's entirely within the behest of the judge (with the COA
looking over his shoulder, perhaps). That's a whole order of magnitude
decided by the judge without jury help.
Well, it seems that more than 50 lawyers may disagree with you.
Personally I would prefer to read the judge's sentencing remarks before deciding whether I agree with eminent KC Michael Mansfield. That said, I think Labour Home Secretaries have a bad reputation for suppressing
dissent, and I think Starmer ought to know better, and this case might
be a vote-loser for Labour.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action- protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat
On Friday, the trial judge, Mr Justice Johnson, will decide whether
there was a terrorism connection to their offence rCo which would mean a harsher sentence rCo despite the jury never having been told of this possibility.
Mansfield is the highest-profile signatory of an open letter signed by
more than 50 lawyers and legal experts saying such a finding would be rCLwrong in principlerCY.
On 12/06/2026 20:28, billy bookcase wrote:
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
Normally, the judge decides how to apply the sentencing guidelines, without any help from a jury. Why do you think that deciding whether there's a terrorist aspect is fundamentally different from deciding that a sentence is in category A, B or C, say?
You might want to compare this case with a death through dangerous driving case. There, the range of sentencing is 2 - 18 years' custody, and that's entirely within the behest of the judge (with the COA looking over his shoulder, perhaps). That's a whole order of magnitude decided by the judge without jury help.
On 2026-06-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:certainly, definitely, assuredly going to end up at the very least in
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to
five years in prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and
Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
Assuming these are for "criminal damage", the sentencing appears to
be have achieved escape velocity from the sentencing guidelines and gone >exoplanetary. The "highest culpability, highest harm" starting point is
18 months. Even allowing for this "the state can decide it's terrorism
with no need to prove it in a jury trial" bullshit, the sentences seem >completely unjustifiable. I don't think the sentencing remarks are
available yet though.
From another perspective, isn't this judgment now absolutely
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 21:53:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to
five years in prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and
Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
Assuming these are for "criminal damage", the sentencing appears to
be have achieved escape velocity from the sentencing guidelines and gone >>exoplanetary. The "highest culpability, highest harm" starting point is
18 months. Even allowing for this "the state can decide it's terrorism
with no need to prove it in a jury trial" bullshit, the sentences seem >>completely unjustifiable. I don't think the sentencing remarks are >>available yet though.
From another perspective, isn't this judgment now absolutelycertainly, definitely, assuredly going to end up at the very least in
the Court of Appeal but most likely in the Supreme Court? Where,
together with the matter of the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, the whole thing should be thrashed out once
and for all?
Might not the Judge in this case have made these sentencing decisions
to provoke such a debate in the Supreme Court? Over the pond, some of
those whom the POTUS determines are "activist judges" appear to be
making judgments precisely to ensure that they get bumped up to their
own supreme court in order, it would appear to me, to armour plate
some of the protections in their own law against rogue action by their
own executive.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:110j5tt$2q4c7$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/06/2026 20:28, billy bookcase wrote:
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
Normally, the judge decides how to apply the sentencing guidelines, without >> any help from a jury. Why do you think that deciding whether there's a
terrorist aspect is fundamentally different from deciding that a sentence is >> in category A, B or C, say?
You might want to compare this case with a death through dangerous driving >> case. There, the range of sentencing is 2 - 18 years' custody, and that's
entirely within the behest of the judge (with the COA looking over his
shoulder, perhaps). That's a whole order of magnitude decided by the judge >> without jury help.
I may give a fuller answer in due course.
For the moment I will cinfine myself to the obserrvation that in assigning
a terrorist motive to the offences the Judge was thereby categorisng
the offences as poliical; and those sentenced as being polical; prisoners.
To some dgeree at least
Now for a very short time the then Secretary Of State for NI William
Whitelaw agreed to categorise IRA prisoners convicted of terrorist offences as SCS "Special Category Status" prisoners; who were *afforded certain priviledges* as a result; such as not wearing prison uniform. (1)
Howver this concession was later withdrwan by a Labour SoS
which was the cause of the subsequent blanket protests
and hunger strikes.
The intention being that from that point on SCS i.e poliical prisoners
would be treated *exactly the same" as ordinary prisoners
convicted of criminal offences.
Whereas by virtue of these new measures political prisoners* are deliberately *being treated worse than ordinary criminals*
bb
* To say nothing of the widening of the categorisation. Unlike
in the case of normal sentenciong criteria
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Category_Status
On 13 Jun 2026 at 09:23:54 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 08:28 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
quote:
Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21,
were convicted of criminal damage in a retrial after they broke into the Elbit
Systems factory near Bristol in August 2024.
Mr Justice Johnson said their actions had aimed to influence the government and
the group was sentenced on the basis the raid had a "terrorist connection". >>>
Corner was jailed for seven years and eight months for criminal damage and >>> inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police sergeant. The judge said he had no
justification for the "extreme and gratuitous force" used.
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to five years
in
prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and Rajwani received a >>> prison sentence of four years and eight months.
The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage
have been classified as connected to terrorism.
Due to the terrorist ruling, the offenders will not qualify for early release
from prison provisions and the Parole Board will assess their risk to the >>> public
when it determines when they can be set free.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce950111xk7o
Although the quote doesn't specify which Govt they were seeking to
influence, the idea that the Israeli Govt would have altered their
policy in respect of Gaza, in response to a raid on a factory in the UK
is clearly nonsense. Seeking to influence the UK Govt when it came
to issuing arms manufacturing licences is maybe another matter.
Although this isn't what HH Justice Johnson previously argued.
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
A total stitch up, IMO.
The (rather obviously) criminal damage is one thing. The attack upon a
police officer with a sledge-hammer (FFS!) is quite another. The
sentences are all justified simply on the basis of complicity in that.
A clever theory but specifically excluded by the findings of fact in the original trial and by the law. An intent to use violence against people was found not to have been a factor in the sledge hammer wielder's action so the others present could not have been complicit in an intent that did not exist.
I get that you don't like these defendants but your accusation of complicity
in violence against the person was specifically excluded by the court.
On 2026-06-13, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 21:53:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:certainly, definitely, assuredly going to end up at the very least in
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to
five years in prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and >>>> Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
Assuming these are for "criminal damage", the sentencing appears to
be have achieved escape velocity from the sentencing guidelines and gone >>>exoplanetary. The "highest culpability, highest harm" starting point is >>>18 months. Even allowing for this "the state can decide it's terrorism >>>with no need to prove it in a jury trial" bullshit, the sentences seem >>>completely unjustifiable. I don't think the sentencing remarks are >>>available yet though.
From another perspective, isn't this judgment now absolutely
the Court of Appeal but most likely in the Supreme Court? Where,
together with the matter of the designation of Palestine Action as a
terrorist organisation, the whole thing should be thrashed out once
and for all?
Might not the Judge in this case have made these sentencing decisions
to provoke such a debate in the Supreme Court? Over the pond, some of
those whom the POTUS determines are "activist judges" appear to be
making judgments precisely to ensure that they get bumped up to their
own supreme court in order, it would appear to me, to armour plate
some of the protections in their own law against rogue action by their
own executive.
That would be a very unwise move with the current SCOTUS, if the
judge is trying to bolster protections *against* the executive.
On 12/06/2026 20:28, billy bookcase wrote:
However this totally ignores the point that whether there was a
terrorist connection should have been something which was argued
in front of a jury; allowing them to decide
Normally, the judge decides how to apply the sentencing guidelines, without any help from a jury. Why do you think that deciding whether there's a terrorist aspect is fundamentally different from deciding that a sentence is in category A, B or C, say?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 21:53:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-12, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Head, who drove the prison van into the compound, was sentenced to
five years in prison, Kamio was also handed a five-year jail term, and
Rajwani received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
Assuming these are for "criminal damage", the sentencing appears to
be have achieved escape velocity from the sentencing guidelines and gone >>exoplanetary. The "highest culpability, highest harm" starting point is
18 months. Even allowing for this "the state can decide it's terrorism
with no need to prove it in a jury trial" bullshit, the sentences seem >>completely unjustifiable. I don't think the sentencing remarks are >>available yet though.
From another perspective, isn't this judgment now absolutelycertainly, definitely, assuredly going to end up at the very least in
the Court of Appeal but most likely in the Supreme Court?
together with the matter of the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, the whole thing should be thrashed out once
and for all?
Might not the Judge in this case have made these sentencing decisions
to provoke such a debate in the Supreme Court? Over the pond, some of
those whom the POTUS determines are "activist judges" appear to be
making judgments precisely to ensure that they get bumped up to their
own supreme court in order, it would appear to me, to armour plate
some of the protections in their own law against rogue action by their
own executive.
Nick
quote:
Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema
Rajwani, 21,
were convicted of criminal damage in a retrial after they broke into the >Elbit
Systems factory near Bristol in August 2024.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 33:33:30 |
| Calls: | 900 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,210 |