Victims of Starmer’s Terrorism Act police state face 36-MINUTE trials with no jury

People charged under the Terrorism Act for supporting Palestine Action – in reality for opposing the government’s decision to ban the non-violent anti-genocide group as ‘terrorists’ – will face non-jury trials limited to only thirty-six minutes with verdicts decided only by a judge under a judge’s plans for ‘Starmer Courts’ conducting mass trials of anti-genocide protestors, according to information obtained by former ambassador Craig Murray. Most of those arrested have been pensioners and disabled people.

Palestine Action prosecutions: a sham

Craig Murray describes ‘Justice’ Michael Snow, who concocted the plan, as:

the epitome of judicial prejudice. When Julian Assange appeared before Snow in the first hearing after being dragged from the Embassy, Snow called Assange a “narcissist” even though Assange had said nothing but to confirm his name, and no evidence had been led.

Snow’s plan means that the cases involving the two thousand or so people charged under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act for supporting Palestine Action will be heard:

in batches of five at the rate of ten people a day – giving 36 court minutes for each defendant. This is a farce, a spectacle of mass show trial. The 36 minutes includes both prosecution and defence cases and cross-examination.

At a scheduling hearing on Wednesday, one of the accused, 72 year old Deborah Wilde, objected that these trials would be far too short to present a proper defence.

Snow snapped back “I’m satisfied that the time is sufficient. I am not going to give more time. Your only remedy is the High Court”.

As I am sure Snow realises, ordinary people cannot afford to go to the High Court. The worrying thing is that the trials will be held before judges including the appalling Snow, with no jury.

And, as Murray notes, the unfit-for-purpose – unless the purpose is to allow the government to abuse citizens – Terrorism Act means that just arousing suspicion in a police officer’s head is an actual offence under the legislation (emphases added):

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this draconian legislation is that arousing suspicion is actually the offence. It does not matter if the suspicion turns out to be well-grounded or not. The suspicion could be totally wrong, but if you aroused the suspicion on “reasonable grounds” in a policeman’s head, you are guilty.

It is an offence of strict liability. Your intent is not considered; you may have been most concerned to stop a Genocide, or to oppose the destruction of free speech. Judge Snow and his ilk will not care. They only want to know if some half educated cop suspected you of supporting a terrorist organisation. There is no jury to whom you can explain your actions – and which would be highly likely to sympathise.

I have seen it, as an offence of strict liability, likened to possession of Class A drugs. But actually it isn’t. The correct analogy would be a crime where the offence was arousing a suspicion you possessed Class A drugs, whether you actually had any or not.

The UK has become an unequivocal police state under Starmer, whose Stalinist instincts have always been clear. Murray and others who are fighting this appalling legislation and its misuse have set up a crowd fund to raise money for the legal costs the fight will incur.

Featured image via the Canary