Civil Rights, Commentary, Gaza, International Court of Justice (ICJ), InternationalCriminal Court (ICC), Israel, Legal, Terrorism, United Kingdon

Craig Murray: Malicious Mischief

Shares

The Starmer regime’s failure to defend the Handala along with the mistreatment of the Leonardo 3 in Scotland are both examples of a diseased doctrine of unquestioning U.K. support of Israel.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer in his office on Aug. 1. (Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street/CC BY 2.0)

By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk

The Starmer regime’s attitude to the law, both domestic and international, has been diseased by the doctrine of unquestioning support of Israel.

On July 28, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla Coalition ship Handala, [following the Madleen] became the second vessel flying the Red Ensign to be illegally seized by Israel, without a single word from the U.K., which has a duty to protect its vessel in international waters. 

Indeed British law applies upon the vessel and the Metropolitan Police should be investigating domestic law kidnapping of the passengers.

That is in addition to the international crime of seizing the vessel.

Uniquely the U.K. has declared itself unable to judge whether war crimes have been committed by Israel, absent a decision by an international court. That position has never been taken before, is notably not taken over Ukraine, and is at odds with Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s self-declared ability to judge that there is no genocide in Gaza.

It also ignores the fact that the International Criminal Court cannot judge, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignores their arrest warrants. 

The International Court of Justice case on genocide is in very slow process, but Starmer has no difficulty in pre-empting the court by denying genocide.

Volker Turk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, has very roundly condemned the U.K.’s proscription of the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, and called on the U.K. government to lift the proscription.

[On July 30, in good news for Palestine Action, the High Court gave permission to Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, to bring a full judicial review against the order of the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, proscribing the group as a “terrorist organisation.”]

Volker Turk also has called on the U.K. to amend its Terrorism laws to bring its over-broad definition of terrorism in line with international law standards. Turk stated:

“I urge the U.K. Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the U.K. Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards.”

Türk addressing the U.N. General Assembly in December 2023. (UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe)

This is a remarkable development because nobody could ever accuse Volker Turk of being anti-Western. In fact his passivity, as freedoms are extinguished across the Western world in order to stifle protest against the Genocide, has been a source of frustration to the human rights community.

It is a sign of just how absurd is the proscription of Palestine Action, that even Volker Turk has now decisively spoken out against it.

The Leonardo 3

Let me give you a plain example of just how absurd the law now is.

Three young women from the Shut Down Leonardo group, who drove a van into the security fence of the Edinburgh weapons factory which makes parts for the Israeli military machine, were brought to court on July 21. 

They were charged with Malicious Mischief — a Scottish common law offence of serious vandalism — aggravated by terrorism.

This reduces terrorism from the gravest of crimes, to merely an aggravating factor. 

The driver of the van has even been charged with dangerous driving aggravated by terrorism, which when you think about it is a hilarious concept.

To further underline that nobody really believes this is terrorism, all three have been released on bail. Can you imagine any people accused of a genuine terrorist attack being released on bail?

I don’t want to downplay too far the dangers. Malicious mischief is a dangerous charge — being common law, there is no limit to the possible jail sentence it might carry, and furthermore lengthy jail sentences for it can be imposed by a judge without a jury.

I am unsure that this offence should meet the bar of malicious mischief anyway. The Crown Office charging guidelines state that damage must be in the thousands of pounds and damage must affect others. They read:

“Malicious Mischief should only be recorded where widespread damage is caused, where the value of the damage is considerable, or where there is disruption of power supply, flooding or similar. There is no specific monetary amount where Vandalism stops and Malicious Mischief takes over but any value of damage would require to be significant (several £000s) before a crime of Malicious Mischief is recorded.”

An example given is deliberately damaging power lines and cutting the power to people’s homes. I am not sure a slight dent in a fence meets the bar.

Pernicious Treatment of Protesters

But I also want to look at the women’s treatment as an example of the pernicious treatment of protestors since the proscription of Palestine Action.

The three are not accused of membership or support of Palestine Action. Yet they were arrested under the Terrorism Act and treated as terrorists. They were taken to the specialist terrorist detention and immigration centre in Govan and held there without charge for six days.

That means that some authoritarian judge must have twice secretly signed off on the continuation of their detention. Why?

They were held strictly incommunicado. I helped organise the best legal support for them, and for six days their parents, supporters and I tried to get a message to them to ask for this legal team, but we were not permitted to reach them.

The women’s parents phoned and asked the police to pass on to them a message about the lawyers organised for them. The police refused. The brother of one of the women went to Govan police station, and was also refused permission.

The lawyers we had organised phoned the police, and said they had been instructed by the families, but again the police refused to pass on any message.

The women had to make do with the bog-standard duty solicitor service. Now the police do not normally have the power to hold people without charge for six days and to keep people completely incommunicado during that time.

The Terrorism Act gives the police those powers. But it does not mean they are obliged to use them. It is extraordinary that they refused all requests to tell the women about legal support, which amounts to plainly gratuitous victimisation, designed to prevent the women from mounting the best possible legal defence.

Yet it appears that — from a conversation with one of them — within detention the women were kindly treated, and they had the impression the police also did not think they should be there. Questioning was neither harsh nor particularly probing, and apparently by identifiable Scottish police officers.

That is consistent with the decision to grant bail — they are caught up in a system of terrorist legislation, but none of those operating the system really believes in the narrative.

On July 19, I was present at St Giles Cathedral as 11 people from Defend Our Juries held placards identical to those which have led to mass arrests across the U.K., stating “I Oppose Genocide – I Support Palestine Action.” They were there for half an hour in plain view of police, but nobody was arrested.

People from Defend Our Juries hold placards outside St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh on July 19. (Photo from author’s website)

After the demonstration, a group of demonstrators in front of the Scottish first minister’s office held various signs and wore various T-shirts identical to those which have caused arrest elsewhere, but again nobody was arrested.

In the week since, three people have been arrested and charged with terrorism offences, in relation to the above. 

One of them, Mick Napier, was arrested as he left a protest on July 21 outside Edinburgh Sheriff Court, for the bail hearing of the Leonardo 3.

Mick actually came up to me and said he thought he was about to be lifted, as policemen were following him around. Five minutes later he was. Since then, plain clothes policemen have been to his home three times in a campaign of intimidation.

While the Leonardo 3 are out on bail, they too are suffering from various methods of state intimidation, including the freezing of bank accounts and loss of access to money.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Subscriptions to keep Craig Murray’s blog going are gratefully received. Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, Murray has set up new methods of payment including a GoFundMe appeal and a Patreon account.

This article is from CraigMurray.org.uk.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

 

Donate to CN’s

2025 Summer

 Fund Drive

 

2 comments for “Craig Murray: Malicious Mischief”

  1. Ray Peterson
    August 4, 2025 at 18:52

    Charge of terrorism gives Western governments
    an absolute power over any act of resistance,
    dissent or opposition. 9/11 the source of this
    power and maybe that act of terrorism needs
    an impartial investigation.

  2. Lois Gagnon
    August 4, 2025 at 14:31

    There should be zero doubt at this point, the fascists are in full control in the UK.

Comments are closed.