Yvette Cooper was warned her Palestine Action article could bias jury, but ‘went ahead anyway’

The courts warned Yvette Cooper that her newspaper article on the proscription of Palestine Action ran the risk of biasing the jury during the trial of several members of the group. However, the then-home-secretary “went ahead anyway”.

Defense lawyers attempted to have the case thrown out on the grounds that Cooper had prejudiced proceedings. However, the presiding judge – Justice Johnson – ruled that Palestine Action’s proscription “required public justification”.

‘Not lawful protest’

Reporting restrictions have now been lifted on the trial of Palestine Action activists who raided an Elbit Systems factory in Bristol in 2024. Elbit is the largest producer of arms for Israel, which is currently committing genocide against the Palestinian people.

Back in August 2025, Cooper wrote an article for the Observer under the headline:

Yvetter Cooper: Palestine Action ‘is not lawful protest’

The article claimed that the charges against the group included “a terrorism connection” in the eyes of the CPS.

Because of the lifted restrictions, we now know that the CPS warned Cooper that her article ran the risk of prejudicing the jury. Likewise, as the Canary’s Skwawkbox reported at the time:

On Sunday 17 August, campaign group Defend Our Juries levelled a contempt of court complaint against the home secretary Yvette Cooper over an article in the Observer. Notably, this was after she made repeated insinuations that the government proscribed Palestine Action because of violence against people.

However, the former home secretary didn’t let that stop her.

‘She went ahead anyway’

Last November, as part of a previously unpublishable pre-trial ruling, Johnson wrote that:

It is to be taken that the home secretary was specifically advised that going ahead with the article might prejudice these proceedings, and that she went ahead anyway … The CPS made representations to the home secretary about the risk of prejudice.

It follows that the home secretary took the action that she did, and made the public statements that she did, in the knowledge that these proceedings were extant and that there might well be a question as to the impact of her conduct and her statements on these proceedings.

The defendants’ lawyers argued that Cooper’s public statements made a fair trial impossible. They submitted written statements alleging that the Observer article was:

dripping in innuendo. In one breath, she is saying that many important details cannot yet be publicly reported; in another, she is reporting some of those very details herself.

However, Johnson ruled against this defence. Instead, he argued that:

The decision to proscribe Palestine Action was highly controversial and required public justification. It is unsurprising that the government sought publicly to justify the decision that it had taken and that it relied, in general terms (without naming individuals), on Palestine Action’s activities, including the activities that have resulted in these proceedings.

In doing so, the home secretary ran a risk of causing some prejudice to these proceedings, but that is different from deliberately flouting a reporting restriction order.

Violence and property damage?

It’s noteworthy that Cooper’s article made serious allegations of violence against Palestine Action. She stated that:

Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for – and promoted on its website – attacks that have seen those allegedly involved subsequently charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary.

However, in its policy paper ‘Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations’, the government felt no such need to inform the public of the group’s alleged violence. The paper instead focuses almost solely on property damage and related offences:

In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the government. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022, and in 2024 at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The seriousness of these attacks includes the extent and nature of damage caused, including to targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public.

The state proscribed Palestine Action back in July 2025. However, the policy paper was last updated in January 2026, long after Cooper’s article. So, some questions arise here.

If it was so important to get the information out about Palestine Action’s alleged violence that Cooper could risk biasing a jury ahead of an important trial, why isn’t it in the policy paper? Why, instead, did the former home secretary publish this crucial public justification in the Observer, a paywalled news site?

Ultimately, all defendants in the Filton trial were acquitted of the charge of “violent disorder”. Samuel Corner, charged with “grievous bodily harm”, was also only found guilty of a lesser charge, with the jury finding he injured a police officer “without intent.”

Further sentencing

In February 2026, the High Court ruled the government proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful.

Regarding the recent retrial, as of 12 May 2026, defendants Jordan Devlin and Zoe Rogers have been acquitted. Their four comrades were convicted after the trial judge forbade any mention of the jury’s legal right to acquit on conscience.

As Skwawkbox explained for the Canary, the government wants those four – Samuel Corner, Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani – sentenced as terrorists. They were convicted of criminal damage, rather than any terror offence.

Sentencing will take place at Woolwich Crown Court on 12 June 2026.

Featured image via the Canary