You May Not Sympathise with the Elbit Four’s Methods. But You Should Be Outraged by Their Treatment Under the Law

The jurors who found the pro-Palestine activists guilty of criminal damage had no idea their verdict would be treated as a verdict on terrorism

You May Not Sympathise with the Elbit Four’s Methods. But You Should Be Outraged by Their Treatment Under the Law

TL;DR

  • In 1670, Edward Bushell secured the right for jurors to acquit based on their conscience, a principle now under scrutiny.
  • The 'Elbit four' were convicted of criminal damage after protesting an arms factory, facing severe sentences due to a secret 'terrorist connection' ruling.
  • The judge's secret ruling, influenced by the Sentencing Act of 2020, allowed for significantly harsher punishments, labeling the defendants as 'terrorists' without a terrorism charge.
  • This case highlights a potential erosion of legal principles, including open justice and the right to be convicted only of charged offenses.
  • The article suggests a need for greater transparency in how jury rights and terrorism laws are applied in direct action cases.

Continue reading the original article