An interesting comment by Craig Murray on the related Filton case:
This is an extraordinary new legal strategy by which the sentencing for ordinary criminal charges may be radically increased if the judge, and the judge alone, decides there is a terrorist link post verdict. The jury has no say on whether there is a terrorist connection or not, and the judges hide from the jury the possibility of this happening at all.
But the public are not stupid and do not live under a rock. The jury sent a note in the second Filton case to the judge Patrick Field asking him whether there would be sentencing under “terrorist connection”. Field replied to the jury that this was “not your concern”.
Can anyone familiar with British law explain this? Can a judge really change a sentence after the trial? Isn't adding charges and aggravating circumstances the job of the prosecutor, not the judge?
Not sure if I can trust this blog, looking at another article linked from that one:
Palestine Action was a legal organisation.
Nearly a year later, the government of Keir Starmer declared it a
terrorist group – the first time in British history that a non-violent
direct action organisation has been proscribed.
AFAIK, they rammed their van through a front shutter, without knowing who might be on the other side; and as police tried to arrest them, one of them hit a female police officer in the back/spine with a sledgehammer.
Cook has long been aligned with those standing against the Western powers. Often for good, but equally as often to spread Russian disinformation and narratives.
The West is in moral collapse. Stripped of moral authority it lays bare the lie of colonialism and extraction.
It looks like the original speech to the jury that won this case is published online here: https://greghadfield.medium.com/tony-greenstein-the-most-imp... - definitely worth a read.
An interesting comment by Craig Murray on the related Filton case:
This is an extraordinary new legal strategy by which the sentencing for ordinary criminal charges may be radically increased if the judge, and the judge alone, decides there is a terrorist link post verdict. The jury has no say on whether there is a terrorist connection or not, and the judges hide from the jury the possibility of this happening at all.
But the public are not stupid and do not live under a rock. The jury sent a note in the second Filton case to the judge Patrick Field asking him whether there would be sentencing under “terrorist connection”. Field replied to the jury that this was “not your concern”.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/08/of-judges-ju...
Can anyone familiar with British law explain this? Can a judge really change a sentence after the trial? Isn't adding charges and aggravating circumstances the job of the prosecutor, not the judge?
Not sure if I can trust this blog, looking at another article linked from that one:
-- https://substack.com/home/post/p-184498793AFAIK, they rammed their van through a front shutter, without knowing who might be on the other side; and as police tried to arrest them, one of them hit a female police officer in the back/spine with a sledgehammer.
Doesn't sound non-violent to me..
Cook has long been aligned with those standing against the Western powers. Often for good, but equally as often to spread Russian disinformation and narratives.
Is this the same Jonathan Cook who is ostensibly an agitator spouting Russian talking points?
I suppose we'll be linking to The Duran next.
What does half of an 80's (and onward) English pop band have to do with English justice?