Judge Sarah Plaschkes Spewed Bile & Venom as Her Determination to Have Me Convicted was Thwarted
Tony Greenstein NOT GUILTY – Crispin Flintoff
When I set out from Brighton for Kingston-upon-Thames last Monday, I was not sure that I would be coming back anytime soon. I made sure to turn off my electrical appliances.
In the weeks leading up to the trial I had made elaborate arrangements for others to continue the appeal for the Al Tafawk Children’s Centre in Jenin. It would have been devastating if the children of Al Tafawk were to suffer because of my ‘crimes’.
Day One of Tony Greenstein’s trial
A trusted friend was given full access to my email account and she also had a key to my flat and hence access to my computer. I also ensured that before I went into the dock for what could be my last appearance that I handed my phone to another friend. I also said goodbye to two of my children, James and Ellie, who were in the public gallery.
I was facing a judge, Sarah Plaschkes KC, who was determined to ensure that I was convicted for terrorism. Plaschkes was one of the most unpleasant and dishonest people I’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter.
When the jury returned she made an extraordinary statement, fully knowing the jury’s verdict. She said that she had considered citing me for contempt of court but had decided against it as my speech was the ‘ramblings of an old man.’ She was sure that the jury’s decision had not been affected by my speech!
Day Two of Tony Greenstein’s trial
For a moment I thought that maybe they had found me guilty after all but when a jury returns after just 2 hours 11 minutes, it is very likely that they have all agreed on a not guilty verdict. When asked their verdict the foreman of the jury pronounced ‘not guilty.’ It was, as you can imagine, an immense relief. Plaschkes exited the court full of fury signifying nothing apart from her own humourless and vapid character. It was like a bad smell disappearing.
From the outset Plaschkes was determined to have me convicted but unfortunately for her I was determined not to let her get her way. I was not going to let her prevent me from getting through to the jury.
Plaschke’s Bias
Her bias was truly appalling. Back in January at what was supposed to be the hearing, Plaschkes had turned down our application for the prosecution to be declared an abuse of process.
Section 117 (2A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 states that for an offence relating to a country outside the UK, a prosecution may only proceed with the consent of the Attorney General. However Attorney General, Richard Hermer excused himself, on the grounds of a conflict of interest.
Sarah Sackman – the Solicitor General Who Authorised My Prosecution – Dedicated Zionist – But No Bias According to the Reactionary LJ Edis of the Court of Appeal – Sackperson proves that Labour Zionism is no different from its Likud variant
Day Three of Tony Greenstein’s trial
It therefore fell to the Solicitor-General, Sarah Sackman, to consent. The only problem was that she had been Vice-Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement from 2015 to 2024. She had also attacked me personally in an article in the Jewish News, March 16, 2016. She had co-authored an article with Mike Katz, attacking me as a ‘problematic figure’ i.e. I was anti-Semitic.
It was obvious that Sackman was biased and could not approve my prosecution. Plaschkes disagreed. The Court of Appeal judges, headed by LJ Edis found (para. 57) that ‘A fair minded and informed observer… would not, in our judgment conclude that there was a real possibility that she was biased in taking the only reasonable option open to her.’ One wonders what world Edis and company live in.
Live: Outside Tony Greenstein’s court hearing
This was a case where I was accused of supporting Hamas as an organisation, despite the fact that I had written numerous blogs criticising Hamas.
It was clearly relevant to the case against me as to whether or not I actually do support Hamas. That can only be gleaned from what I had previously written. But no, Plaschkes found procedural reasons for excluding nearly all of my previous articles from the Bundle handed to the jury.
Again the Court of Appeal agreed with her decision. I openly accused her from the dock of trying to rig the trial and contrary to her instructions I referred to the articles throughout my testimony until it became clear to the Jury that Plaschkes and the Prosecution were trying to obtain a wrongful conviction by foul means.
Sir Stephen Sedley – Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge and anti-Zionist
Dishonesty is hard wired into how most judges behave. Like a fish the judiciary rots from the head down. Unlike in previous decades we have no judicial giants like Tom Bingham, Patrick Devlin, Johan Steyn, Lord Philips, Sir Stephen Sedley and Lord Peter Taylor who presided over Hillsborough disaster inquiry. The latter four being Jewish.
It was because I knew that the judge would be likely to try and do his/her best to obtain a conviction that I therefore determined that I would take the final speech to the jury. My solicitor tried to persuade me otherwise but I knew, from previous experience at Wolverhampton Crown Court, that even progressive barristers do not challenge the dictat of the reactionary judiciary because otherwise they may face the hell that Rajiv Menon KC is now facing.
Rajiv is facing an action for contempt of court because he is alleged to have disobeyed the MI6 lawyer come judge, Injustice Jeremy Johnson in the Filton 25 trial when he mentioned the right of a jury to decide a case on the basis of their conviction and conscience.
I was determined, come hell and high water to make my own address to the jury. Of course it was a gamble and might not have come off but it was worth it. The judge might have tried to interrupt me but she already knew that I would bark back.
Never was there a more insipid, characterless and vituperative judge than Sarah Plaschkes. Her bile was only matched by her incompetence. She looked to the Prosecutor in much the same way as a drunk treats a lamp post. Not for illumination but support. But Prosecutor Kate Temple-Mabe wasn’t able to provide much help to the clueless Plaschkes, who is clearly a Jewish Zionist.
It was as I said, the most important half hour of my life. You can read my speech here. I wanted to get over, in my own words, why I was pleading not guilty and I refused to be bound by the ‘guidance’ of Her Dishonour Plaschkes. As regards my speech just one word of warning. There are parts that I omitted because of time, such as my reference to debanking and I also expanded on other sections. I told Plaschkes that it would be about half an hour but in fact it was over 50 minutes. I am going to try and get hold of the official transcript.
I made the speech, not only on my behalf but on behalf of everyone who has been victimised for opposing genocide and supporting the Palestinians. This dishonest government and its even more dishonest judges are determined to channel our opposition to genocide and our support for the Palestinians into a narrow channel of their own making, the proscription of Hamas. Instead of condemning the terrorism of the Israeli state and the IDF, the Israeli equivalent of the (Schutzstaffel) SS, they characterise the opponents of genocide as terrorists.
We live in an upside down world. As capitalism and imperialism go on the rampage killing thousands of people in the Middle East and elsewhere those who oppose their war machine are accused of what they themselves are guilty of.
I want to thank my barrister, Lawrence McNulty, my solicitors; Zafar Iqbal and Saghir Hussein, even though we had many disagreements they were of invaluable help.
But above all I want to thank my wonderful campaign support team who not only organised my website Justice for Tony Greenstein but they gave me invaluable emotional and political support –Catherine who accompanied and stayed with me at Kingston Crown Court, Reem, who stayed with me at Kingston in January and who with Nimi helped me with my speech, Yasmin who organised support for me in Brighton and Naila.
I spent much time assembling my speech but when the quotes, the arguments and the historical examples were all assembled by me they consisted of over 30 pages. Brevity may be the soul of wit but it is not my writing style! The speech I drafted was therefore put through a high powered AI, Claude and then when I got the speech back it was further edited until I was satisfied with it. Even on the morning of Friday I was still editing it.
I also want to thank the following people for agreeing to speak at my rally, for which 400 people registered on August 11th. Ali Abunimah, editor of the Electronic Intifada who has been immensely supportive and encouraging. Ghada Karmi, a child survivor of the Nakba and an eminent author, academic and doctor who wrote a wonderful article, The Martyrdom Of Tony Greenstein. My only problem with it is that martyrs usually have to die first!
Ronnie Kasrils, former Minister of Intelligence in the government of Nelson Mandela and himself Jewish also kindly agreed to speak as did Annette Norman, the mother of Filton 25 defendant Maddy Norman. Huda Ammori – a co-founder of Palestine Action and Lubna Speitan, a British-Palestinian who is spearheading the Zionism is Racism motion at the Green Party conference.
To all of them and the many people who have sent me good wishes I thank you from the bottom of my heart. But that is not enough. I want people to draw lessons from my victory, because it must not just be my victory but that of the Palestine solidarity and the direct action movement.
So here are some of the conclusions I have drawn:
i. Consider carefully your solicitor’s advice, if you are arrested, to do a No Comment interview. The reason why is that the interview is read into the record of the court and this is an unparalled opportunity to put your case direct to the jury. Of course in my case it was edited down from about 35 to a dozen pages. The Prosecution did their best to reduce what I had to say but even they could not manage to exclude what I had to say. Plaschkes of course went along with all the edits bar one – then the Prosecution suggested replacing one question but leaving the answer intact thus providing an answer to a question that was excluded!!
If you are confident enough in what you have to say and articulate enough really think through whether or not it will help you. Remaining silent will enable the Prosecution to draw ‘adverse inferences’ from your silence. Your answers to the Police interrogator will be read in court, often edited but it will enable you to get your case across if there is a prosecution.
ii. Prepare for your cross-examination carefully. This is your opportunity to get your case across. Don’t accept the framework of the Prosecution. When they ask ‘did you do A on the Nth day of whenever’ make sure you paint a wider picture and put it into context. If they ask you do you support Hamas don’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Start off by explaining that Hamas was the elected government of the Palestinians. That they are a resistance group that Israel and the West has demonised. Always set the scene.
iii. If the judge tell you not to be political don’t just accept the reprimand. When I was told this, repeatedly, I responded that genocide is political. The proscription itself is political. The definition of terrorism is so wide that the government has massive discretion as to who is proscribed as a terrorist organisation and who is not.
iv. Prosecuting people for what they say rather than what they have done is inherently political. I accused Plaschkes from the dock of trying to rig the trial.
v. Put the Prosecution and Judge on trial. Accuse them of turning a blind eye to Apartheid and Genocide and turn the spotlight on Israel.
vi. If – and I say if, you feel confident enough, then take the final closing speech to the jury. There will be pressure on you not to but remember your barrister will not be able to mention the Bushell’s case nor that of judges who have backed the idea that some laws need to be set aside when they provide for an unjust outcome. You are not there to satisfy your legal team. They are there to help you. Take charge of the case and challenge your barrister/solicitor.
vii. When Plaschkes warned me that she would intervene in my speech I retorted that Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice dictates that judges should not interrupt a litigant in person’s closing speech unless absolutely necessary, favoring corrections during the summing-up instead.
Archbold is the practitioner’s bible. It is highly authoritative: Even though it is not legally binding, Archbold is treated with immense respect. It has been in continuous publication since 1822. Judges and barristers rely on it daily in the Crown Court to quickly look up criminal procedures, sentencing guidelines and case law
In Archbold (specifically within the chapters on Trial under the subsections for Speeches), the manual instructs that judges must exercise strict restraint during a defendant’s closing address to the jury. The rationale provided in the text emphasizes that:
· The Summing-Up is the Correction Point: If a defendant makes an error of law, introduces an unevidenced point, or strays outside the strict bounds of the case during their speech, the judge’s proper remedy is not to constantly disrupt the flow of the speech. Instead, the judge should make a note of the issue and correct or clarify it objectively during their subsequent summing-up to the jury.
· Preserving Trial Fairness: Unwarranted or aggressive interruptions from the bench during a closing argument risk giving the jury the impression that the court has taken a side, which can prejudice the fairness of the trial and form grounds for an appeal.
The Right to be Heard: A litigant in person has a fundamental right to address the jury. Archbold serves to remind the judiciary that a closing speech belongs to the advocate (or the self-represented defendant) and should be interfered with only in the most extreme circumstances.
The Risk of Judicial Intervention: While Archbold advises restraint, judges do retain the power to intervene if they believe a speech is becoming a purely political forum or deliberately flouting a prior legal ruling (such as a ruling on admissible evidence).
Archbold Chapter 4 outlines essential legal principles regarding judicial interventions during closing speeches, relying on foundational precedents like R v Clewer and R v Hamilton. These authorities establish that a judge’s primary duty is to ensure the defence is fairly put, and that any factual or legal inaccuracies in a closing speech should ideally be addressed during the judge’s summing-up rather than through constant interruptions. While litigants are protected from arbitrary interference, judges retain the right to intervene if a speech breaches evidence rules.
After my experience two years ago at a Palestine Action trial in Wolverhampton, when my barrister told me she wasn’t going to defy the judge if it jeopardised her career I realised that there are things a litigant in person can say that the barrister won’t say. And that might be the difference between an acquittal and conviction.
When I observed left-wing barristers buckling under the dictat of Judge Michael Chambers KC in Wolverhampton, I made a decision when I was arrested that I would take the closing speech.
Media coverage has been variable. It has been greeted with delight by the activist media but largely ignored by the bourgeois press and the ruling class stenographers.
Brighton and Hove News which is a far-right-wing rag that supports the Zionists carried news of my being admonished by the judge two days ago when I was told that the court was not a political forum but for some reason it has failed to report my acquittal! Clearly the verdict of the jury must have upset their nasty little liar of an editor Jo Wadsworth.
The Jewish Chronicle chose to focus, not on my acquittal but on the Judge’s attack on me! The BBC’s article was fair enough without carrying anything about my anti-genocide stance.
But perhaps the sweetest of all the reactions was the fury of Heidi Bachram, the non-Jewish Zionist snout. She is someone who follows in the footsteps of the informers who betrayed Jews hiding from the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Heidi Bachram Gives Us A Good Example of the Police State Mentality of Zionists – The CPS failed ‘to protect us all’ – What from? My Opinions? Are Zionists so fragile that they will collapse if I say something they don’t like?
See also:
Greg Hadfield, Medium, Tony Greenstein: The most important half-hour of my life
Greenstein judge gives Starmer green light for Israel bias in prosecutions
Tony Greenstein’s historic speech led to acquittal — and Zionist meltdown
