On Thursday July 11th three brave campaigners risked arrest in a silent protest outside Sheffield Crown Court. They sat in the cold for an hour holding placards saying “The Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their Convictions”. The action is being repeated at courts all around the country.
This was done in solidarity with the 11 people who were arrested outside Southwark Crown Court on the 2nd of July for doing exactly the same thing and for the growing number of protesters being denied a fair trial.
Increasingly Judges hearing cases concerning non-violent direct action refuse to let the accused explain the motivations behind their actions. Climate protesters for instance believe their actions are justified because the Government and big business are ignoring the warnings of scientists that we must stop burning fossil fuels if we are to save our civilisation because increased heating will lead to tipping points that will make our climate inhospitable to life. Palestine campaigners want to explain how weapons manufactured in this country are used to kill innocent men women and children in Gaza. When a motivation is to save lives, surely the jury should be able to hear and understand that motivation before they make their verdict.
Steph Howlett explained “It’s important for jurors to understand the context of why the accused have done what they have done. It’s a principle in law going back to the 1600s and there is a plaque in the Old Bailey stating this principle.”
As this was happening in Sheffield, 5 Just Stop Oil supporters were on trial in Southwark for planning to bring the M25 to a halt.
The five defendants – Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil co-founder Roger Hallam (57, from Wales), Daniel Shaw (38, from Northampton), Lucia Whittaker De Abreu (34, from Derby), Louise Lancaster (58, from Cambridge) and Cressida Gethin (22, from Hereford) – have been remanded until their sentencing hearing next Thursday. They were eventually found guilty and have been told to expect long prison sentences. They were convicted of conspiracy to cause public nuisance for planning to disrupt the M25 by climbing motorway gantries in November 2022, to demand an end to new oil and gas licensing, a demand the incoming Labour government has just met. (although there is now controversy concerning exactly what was said).
The jury entered guilty verdicts against all defendants after Judge Christopher Hehir removed all legal defences, ruling that the climate crisis was ‘irrelevant’ to the trial.
After taking the oath to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’, 4 defendants refused to comply with the judge’s direction to finish their evidence without explaining their reasons for taking action. When cross-examined by the prosecutor, Jocelyn Ledward KC, Mr Shaw said: “I’d be happy to answer the prosecutor’s questions, but not until I’ve finished giving evidence”. Others responded in a similar vein. They then refused to leave the witness box, before honouring their oath to the jury to tell the whole truth.
On each occasion, the judge cleared the public gallery and ordered the defendant to be arrested and imprisoned. The four missed substantial parts of the trial proceedings as a result. They were permitted twenty minutes to make closing speeches, which they had to prepare for from the cells.
On 24 June, the first day of the trial, the UN Special Rapporteur for Environmental Defenders, Michel Forst, issued an extraordinary public statement questioning the legality of proceedings. It states:
“In my letter of 12 March 2024 to the government of the United Kingdom, I expressed my serious concern about the arrest, very lengthy remand in prison and harsh bail conditions of Mr Shaw as a result of his involvement in peaceful environmental protest to call for urgent government action concerning the climate crisis …
Following his arrest, Mr Shaw spent 113 days in prison on remand. When eventually released from remand, he has been subject to a range of highly draconian bail conditions including, among others, a 10 pm-7 am curfew, an electronic monitoring tag, a requirement to sleep at his home address every night, a prohibition from having either direct or indirect contact with any of his co-defendants and a prohibition from participating in any climate change demonstration. Mr. Shaw has been subject to most of these severe restrictions on his personal life for nearly one and a half years …
I have now received new information regarding the imminent criminal trial of Mr. Shaw that I consider deeply concerning. With Mr Shaw’s criminal trial set to start today, on 24 June 2024, I have been informed that Mr Shaw may reasonably expect to face a prison sentence of up to two years (or more) for, in essence, his participation in a Zoom call to discuss a proposed peaceful environmental protest. The imposition of such sanction is not only appalling but may also violate the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law.”
On the day that Michel Forst attended court, the judge agreed the jury could be presented with a set of ‘Facts Not In Dispute’, which acknowledged
‘i) that the climate crisis is an ‘existential threat to humanity’;
ii) that breaching the 1.5˚C global temperature limit risks catastrophic and irreversible harm;
iii) that that limit is predicted to be breached permanently by 2030;
iv) that as at the time of the action, the Government kept issuing new oil and gas licences’.
Despite this information being presented to the jury, following the departure of Mr Forst from the trial, the judge directed the jury to treat the existential threat to humanity as “irrelevant” and to ignore it entirely.
Furthermore, despite the admission of these matters in evidence as objective ‘Facts Not In Dispute’, Judge Hehir continued to refer to the defendants’ motivations for taking action as matters of “political opinion or belief”.
On 2 July, 11 people sat quietly outside Southwark Crown Court holding signs saying “Juries deserve to hear the whole truth” and “Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant on their conscience.” Judge Hehir ordered the police to arrest them. A 12th person, holding a blank sign, was not arrested. The judge’s order appeared to fly in the face of the recent High Court judgement on the issue, dismissing the Solicitor General’s application for contempt of court against Trudi Warner for holding a similar sign:
“[I]t is fanciful to suggest that Ms Warner’s behaviour falls into this category of contempt. The category is limited to threatening, intimidatory, abusive conduct or other forms of harassment …
The following Tuesday, more than 80 people returned to Southwark Crown Court holding similar signs, in solidarity with those previously arrested. This time the judge left them undisturbed.
Charges against the Southwark 11 were then dropped. The only explanation for this is that Judge Hehir realised he had got it wrong, and should not have ordered the arrest of the 11 placard holders. He should apologise to those he arrested and make proper reparation.
As the Government make plans for the early release of prisoners due to prison overcrowding it is crazy to be imprisoning peaceful protesters who would not be protesting if only the Government followed the recommendations of the climate scientists and started taking the threat of climate chaos seriously.
Don’t miss the next post from TelltheTruthSheffield.org! Sign up to get it delivered to your mail box for free!
Please consider helping TelltheTruthSheffield.org. We incur lots of expenses and have no income apart from the occasional donation from people like you.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyDiscover more from Tell the Truth Sheffield
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
