Share this post:

Defend Our Juries questions the evidence behind the Home Secretary’s claims and seeks clarity on what she intended the public to infer.

Campaign group Defend Our Juries (DoJ) has demanded an explanation from Home Secretary Yvette Cooper after she implied that the activist group Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation due to violence against other people.

Cooper made the claim in an Observer article. She also described the group’s activities as “intimidating” and causing injury.

Official records and government assessments do not support these claims. They indicate that the proscription was primarily based on property damage, targeting military contractors supplying equipment to Israel.

Most of Palestine Action’s activities, according to the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), involved minor property damage rather than violence against individuals.

It has been suggested that Cooper may have committed contempt of court in her article – that is the purpose of DoJ’s complaint to the Attorney General.

But This Writer would suggest that it may be more productive to investigate not only contempt of court outright but also what Cooper meant by her statements—and what the public might infer from them.

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,

The organisation stated.

The campaign group is particularly concerned about the potential implications for ongoing trials, such as those involving the so-called “Filton 24.”

Even if the claims do not automatically constitute contempt of court, they could become problematic if they rely on confidential court material or influence jurors:

Yvette Cooper’s comments have been widely publicised, such that it would be impossible to find a jury unaffected by them.

Additionally, DoJ’s inquiry may even touch on the risk of libel.

By publicly linking Palestine Action or its members to acts of violence not proven in court, Cooper’s statements could be seen as damaging reputations, even among members already convicted of unrelated offenses.

Legal analysts may say that the Home Secretary’s column may represent a grey area between public comment and statements that require evidentiary support.

But the group’s letter demands clarification on the sources and rationale for her statements, and whether they were based on publicly verifiable evidence or confidential proceedings.

The campaign group has indicated it will share its correspondence with the legal representatives of those on trial, underscoring the wider stakes for fair trial rights and transparency.

While it remains uncertain whether any formal contempt proceedings will follow, the case highlights tensions between public commentary, evidence, and legal obligations—and the pressure on high-profile officials to justify their claims.

Suppose Cooper’s comments are shown to be unsubstantiated – or we are never offered proof and she hides behind claims of confidentiality?

Who would believe a word she ever said afterwards?

Share this post: