Alan Lodge's Blog

Mr Rees for the defences calls Prof. Ian Roberts. He is Professor of Epidemiology and Public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.  Widely published and contributed to issues on health issues and debates worldwide.  Active research interests in the links between fossil fuel energy use, climate change and human health, contributing work to the World Health Organization WHO.

Accumulating scientific evidence suggests that man made climate change, primarily resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, has had and will continue to have serious adverse effects on the health of human populations.

Asked about his health estimates of what are the consequences of global climate change, he says in 2000 150,000 years of life lost, a measure of premature deaths each year due to such changes. Together with 5.5 million disability adjusted life years because of injury, disability and incapacity. Taken together, these amount to a generic measure of human suffering.  These measures are certain to increase, evidenced by the clearly increased incidence of diseases aggravated by climate change.

When trying to understand the evidence, a first step would be to make a classification of diseases that are sensitive to climate change can be divided thus:
•    Malnutrition
•    Diarrhoea
•    Deaths due to flooding
•    Drought and its consequences
•    Temperature related Cardio-vascular diseases

Dr Roberts mentions the difficulty in predicting extremes. Pointing to the European heatwave of 2003 that directly resulted in 70,000 excess deaths in France.

The second step involves estimating from the science literature how changes in climate factors, influence the occurrence of disease.  There is much uncertainty here, taking into account the surprises of extreme events [like 2003] probably resulting in vastly underestimating the consequences.

The third step involves making estimates of the effects of man made greenhouse gases on human health. Again, hardly an exact science, but the links between climate changes and food production, air and water quality and hence human health have all strengthened.

These global changes are resulting in mass migrations of people, the consequences of which are directly leading to lack of food, shelter and water. Land areas are being rendered uninhabitable and such mass migrations are leading to war and conflict, all clearly detrimental to populations’ health.

Dr Roberts continues that climate changes are leading to higher incidents of diarrhoea, bacterial and viral infections, food poisonings and malaria. As global temperatures have increased, the spread of cover for malaria gets wider. All accentuated further by extreme weather events. The effects on food yields are already apparent, and that they have a disproportionate effect on those areas that are already suffering food insecurities.

Population migrations due to sea level rises are on the increase . For example, look at the pressures on Bangladesh and Pacific island populations.  Migrations and food riots leading to violence, obviously has health implication for personal injuries and death.

Moving onto a short discussion about bio-fuels.  Plant crops grown to produce ethanol fuels for both vehicles and power stations. The priorities in land use for these over previous crop growing has a direct effect on food prices and is leading to crop displacements.  Problems occur in eco-systems if species can’t adapt to new conditions, leading to life distress. Many species of plants and animals cannot adapt to the unprecedented rapidity of man made climate change. It can be expected to find effects such as species extinction occurring and in a worst case the eco-systems complete collapse on which life and human existence depends.

Many species have areas of presence and timing. For example it matters when plants flower and the availability of insects of the right sorts to enable pollination to be effected. Thus, concern about the interdependence of species and their actions, within the ‘web of life’.

Concluding, Dr Roberts says that there is a public health imperative in reducing and in fact stopping, CO2 emissions.  There is in fact a public health emergency and we are sleepwalking into disaster.  There is and will be much increase in interpersonal violence: a generation genocide.

Miss Gerry for the prosecution cross-examines. She has no dispute about Dr Roberts evidence.  She asks in relation to public health emergencies .. what do you do about it?  He says he publishes research, he teaches and continues research on energy use and influences on human health.  She seeks to get him to explain how to go about changing public attitudes.  He again says research and publishing, explains these concerns to the media, Lancett etc. The dissemination of information to raise the public awareness.

Dr Ian Roberts, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/profiles/roberts.html

Mr Rees calls his second witness today, one of the defendants Mr BD

By way of introduction, says he’s had involvements with various climate issue related charities. Has been a volunteer researcher for Greenpeace. Since 2005 has been doing some research of human impacts on climate changes and their effects.  An obvious example being regions like Darfur and its associated water stress.

Mr Rees [in dealing with prosecution continued accusations], what efforts at public engagement has BD had previously made?  He replies he has made talks to a variety of groups including,
•    Rotary club
•    6th Form groups
•    Christian Youth Groups
•    Factories
•    Parish council within Oxfordshire
•    Vale of White Horse District Council organised meeting, inviting his local MP Ed Vaizey and the Manager of the Didcot power Station.

Moving onto the intended action, why did you go?  BD replies that he was aware in 2009 of the lack of agreement being achieved at Copenhagen.  The collapse of any post-Kyoto agreements. Thus he wanted to take part in some direct action himself to prevent coal-fired emissions because it did not seem to be happening by any other means. He became involved in the action from around January 2009. Initially the group only consisted of 5 people but within weeks has grown to over 100. BD say he was much involved in the planning of these operations. Safety being a prime consideration. He helped to shop for essential equipment. Produced documents already discussed in evidence.

Mr Rees goes to the ‘Environment Show Stoppers’ leaflet. Agreeing that it was a sham, BD says he designed and printed this. It contained directions and preparations for the action.  He also helped with the ‘Important notice for those working at the power station’ leaflet.  Distributed to all involved in the action.  Included within this is mention of the required transition to a low carbon future. Reassuring existing staff about job creation in ‘green industries’.  Not just about wrecking their prospects for those already employed. BD say he had also dealt with the ‘operational plan’, distributed to the Green team, whose task it was to ascend the chimney and to safely deal with all eventualities.

BD had been involved in briefings at the Iona School to help and ensure a ‘safe and effective’ action.  He added that it was a condition of those taking part that no violence would be shown to police in attendance or to power station staff.

Turning to the mobile phones, discovered at the School during the police raid, he agreed he had been involved with their organisation, adding relevant numbers and labels to ensure the right groups got the right phone. To explain which phones were for what purposes.

Miss Gerry rises for cross-examination. BD, if you took the trouble to engage with meeting in Oxfordshire, why didn’t you do this in Nottinghamshire? He replies that in this instance, out purpose was to simply stop CO2 emissions at Ratcliffe. He adds that his efforts in Oxfordshire, had been in a more optimistic time.  She continues with the notion that without public meetings in Nottinghamshire, he could have had no idea on what the effects of organising the action could be [thus still suggesting irresponsibility].

BD had made ‘no comment’ during interviews with the police. She says that you knew that police would have to respond, hence publicity for your action was intended for after your arrival. Thus, all was secret before. You could have said to police much of what we have learned during this trial. People of Nottinghamshire should have been informed through public meetings if you wanted to act responsibly.  BD says that the object of this exercise was to reduce carbon emissions from the 2nd largest coal-fired power station in the UK, Drax being the biggest.  It was owned by E-on, but that was a secondary concern.

Miss Gerry says, but you made no effort to thing of reasonable alternatives? He says but this action was reasonable. I say you made no investigations on what else could have been done in Nottinghamshire. He again disagrees saying much else had been done, but those at this action and many people in this locality for years previously.

Miss Gerry sits down very abruptly, without further acknowledgment. To all, it’s not obvious she’d finished!

Mr Rees re-examines: You’ve just been sneered at!  That criticism, was any of that fair?  BD says no, it wasn’t. We and others had tried at every stage to stop substantial CO2 emissions and had also taken other alternative actions and public engagements.

Witness is excused and court adjourns

After lunch, Mr Rees calls Dr Geoffrey Meaden now retired, recently been Principle Lecturer in the Department of Geographical and Life Science at Canterbury Christ Church University in Kent. Additionally, he provides consultancy to the United Nations. His specialties are specifically:
•    Biogeography – The study of the distribution of plants and animals around the planet.
•    Local physically geography of Kent, including coastal geography and water supplies in the region.
•    Geographical Information Systems [GIS]. Computer based mapping and analysis. Helpful in siting a variety of service and systems.

He says that there is an increasing body of evidence, backed by the Royal Society, to suggest that the world temperatures are significantly raised compared with the last 10,000 years. More recent rises are unprecedented in history.  Mr Rees says it cold outside, more snow and ice for a November in more than 70 years, can you help the jury [and the rest of us] why this is so if the planet is getting hotter?  Dr Meaden, I’m glad you asked me that  The current difference between sea and land temperatures are quite exaggerated, at the moment there is much evaporation.  This results when passing over colder lands, tuning to snow.  The point of this current weather forecast is of course to illustrate that climate change and weather are two different things.  Throughout seasons and years, we have allsorts of changes up and down a scale, but implied by the average trend, the planet is warming.

The use of coal is growing on a world-wide scale and now contributes about 40% of power generation and about 20% of the total carbon emissions.

There are a number of climate change indicators that help us qualify observations we’re looking at:

1.    Greenhouse gas emissions        rising exponentially
2.    Generally increasing temperatures    in 85% of the earth
3.    Drought heat waves & forest fires        becoming more frequent
4.    Rainfall                    concentrated precipitation events
5.    Severe storm events            rise in energy within storms
6.    Sea temperatures                increasing, but far more recently
7.    Ocean acidification                killing plankton base of marine web
8.    Sea level rise                increasing & more rapidly recently
9.    Polar ice cover                 25% reduction of arctic in 30 years
10.    Melting of glaciers                30% loss in volume in 40 years
11.    Day of snow [or ice] cover            Ski resorts season shortened
12.    Total length of growing season        increase can be both pos & neg
13.    Earlier leafing or flowering            can affect species feeding patterns
14.    Species migrations                changes in animal migration habits
15.    Increased human mortality            cover this in Dr Roberts evidence

During this listing, in noted Dr. Meaden said increasing or exponential rise and increase, lots.

Mr Rees then takes him onto the effects of climate change on sea levels.  As far as the UK is concerned, a rise of 1cm per year had been observed but this is increasing exponentially.

More locally, the Ratcliffe power station is located close to the confluence of the River Trent and River Soar.  There are several characteristics of the Trent basin making it particularly susceptible to flooding. Area has impervious rock structures.  Further, there are large areas of urbanised towns and cities. Again, these provide for larger areas of impervious structures from which vast amounts of ‘run off’ could be expected, rather than ground absorption.

Nottingham and area can expect that flooding will occur more frequently and such events will become more severe and problematic. A 1 in 100 year event, might result in 40% of the city flooded. We might not have to wait for 100 years for such an event, it might be next year or quite soon.  It is becoming more likely because of the rise in urbanisation, building on flood plains etc

Climate is moving to warmer summers and very wet winters that may include what I’ve called ‘concentrated precipitation events’.  These are likely to lead to severe flooding and more likely in prevalence. Insurance figures are showing these trends.  Flood defences are become more vital, but are going to be progressively more expensive to build or maintain as the heights required to deal with become progressively higher. As I said ocean level rises are accelerating.

The coast of Britain has a ‘shoreline management plan’.  Drawn up by local authorities and the Environment Agency and reviewed every couple of years.  But priorities have to be made in which areas are to be chosen for protection. Urban over rural etc .. But, loosing increasing areas of low lying farmland would thus result in diminishing food production.

Miss Gerry cross-examines.  Has anyone of the defendants in the dock asked you to come to Nottingham before.  No.  She then says what if the UK took measures to ‘go-eco’, what would that do to global changes you’ve described. Not very much!

Dr. Geoff Meaden   Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent
http://kentgreenparty.org/geoffmeaden.php

Later in the afternoon, Mr Rees for the defence now calls another of the defendants to the witness box. Mr OB. He has a doctorate in Prehistoric Landscape Archaeology. He say he first became concerted around 86-87 about climate change matters. His concern had been enlarged on reading ‘Heat; How to stop the Planet Burning’ – George Monbiot [2006],

Mr Rees says dealing with the prosecution usual suggestion that no emissions would have been saved by the action, it this true. No he says, the book describes the slack and spare capacity inherent in the grid. Its resilience in fact.  When the power stations manager, Mr Raymond Smith said that other stations might have been fired up to replace Ratcliffe loss in generation, these would also produce emissions. But coal-burning stations provides the baseline of supply in the UK, since the fuel is cheaper.  Replacements would thus most probably come from gas-fired stations, since the coal-fired ones would already be online and generating.

Mr Rees asks what would your action have achieved? OB says a quantifiable amount of CO2 emissions would have been prevented by stopping the burning of coat at the Ratcliffe power station.  The Stern Report says that every ton of CO2 emitted has a knock-on effect. It equates to a measureable cost and effect on lives lost.

With respect to this specific action, OB say he had first been involved from about March 2009 on hearing of the plan to try to shut down the plant.  Convinced it would offer him the best chance of reducing emissions personally.  Mr Rees reminds the court that the prosecution suggests the whole thing was a bit of a jolly! No, certainly not.  This was very serious.

OB says he’s been a climber for about 10 years. He is skilled in ‘single rope’ techniques. Was part of the ‘black team’, the object of which was to shut down the coal conveyor.  People would have pressed the emergency stop buttons and locked-on to the plant there through the arm-tubes.  These would have prevented their easy removal.  As a climber, he would have been suspended in a position to prevent the operation of the coal conveyor and again to make their removal harder.

The climbing harness is displayed to the jury and OB makes quite a lengthy explanation of its operation, components and purpose. Much of which was about the safety features in the equipment to avoid injury during the action.

Miss Gerry for the prosecution cross-examines. She asks about the purpose of being there?  OB replies the same as all the other defendants, to do his best to save emissions from the power station. She says the banners you had with you were all about coal.  The people of Nottingham are not shown any alternatives are they?

Moving on to a publication, she initially asks if an address in Cherwell Street, Oxford means anything to him. Yes it’s the offices of Corporate Watch.  Did you author a report from there called ‘Broken Promises: why the nuclear industry wont deliver’.  She is seeking to demonstrate OB media experience, since there previously been much questioning of others about the press release, prepared ahead of the action. Although he replies his was a minor role in the Corporate Watch publication, Mr Rees objects, since this appeared to be a ‘back-door method’ of introducing the document. He had been ambushed. This had not been initially disclosed to the defence. There was then a bit of legal argument, but the prosecution say that nothing is outstanding to be introduced.

Miss Gerry goes back to the events.  This action wasn’t about saving carbon was it, It was just a media stunt? OB says no, it wasn’t. That because of the scale and immediacy of the situation, we need to take action on CO2 emission right now.  She questions if he had tried canvasing the public on these issues.  He said he had, but had seen the limitations of such a process.  Next to the scale of the present situation, it could be nowhere near as effective in stopping these emissions.

‘Heat; How to stop the Planet Burning’ – George Monbiot 2006, Penguin Press
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/heat

‘Broken Promises: why the nuclear industry wont deliver’. Corporate Watch 2007
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2968

2 December 2010     Nottingham Crown Court

Mr Edward Rees QC for the defence, calls the first witness of the day.  He is Alan Simpson, former MP for Nottingham South between 1992 to this last election 2010.  During this time, he campaigned for a more serious response to climate change issues, by the UK government. He didn’t contest the last election in May 2010 wanting to devote his time on climate change and renewable energy policies.  He remains pessimistic in bringing about required changes through his previous post.  He is now the renewable energy policy advisor, to the Friends of the Earth. He does however, continue to have parliamentary contact, advising the coalition government on the consequences of runaway climate change, and the required shift to renewable sources.

At a total of 39% of all carbon emissions produced by the UK, coal is by far the biggest single contributor. This must not remain so and measures need to be taken.

Mr Rees asks him “is there a democratic deficit?” Mr Simpson insists yes there is, absolutely!!

During the Labour government, what was their attitude to the projected tipping points?  Ed Miliband, the then Energy Secretary, pioneered the Climate Change Act 2008. This was world leading legislation. Together with the current coalition government, there is a virtual cross party agreement on the need to reduce global CO2 emissions. This act and a number of other important steps have been taken by government. But none however match the scale of the problems that we face. The future threats to life and our wellbeing are posed to future generations.

There is again agreement in the need to at least remain under a 2degC increase in temperatures. He refers to Dr Hansen of NASA research on these issues and the possible climate tipping points that can be predicted to occur between 2013 – 2015 if nothing is done. At this threshold, there could be the start of massive changes, for example once the Arctic tundra ice gives up methane on its melting, beyond that point it is clear we will not be able to do anything about it. Many climate protestors legitimately question whether there is anything in current government action plans that would see UK annual carbon emissions declining by this point in time.

Mr Rees takes Alan Simpson back to the Climate Change Act.  He says the object was to change the relationship of individuals and communities to attempt to contribute to solutions. Thus, since the Act came into force in April this year, people and communities who are able to generate electric power by wind turbine, or solar panels etc can contribute to the grid. It should no longer be a one-way system.  However the energy companies opposed and campaigned against such moves. E-on lobbied against such similar changes in Germany. They object claiming ‘intrusion into trade’. The European Union eventually found against the company on enquiry.

Simpson says there are six big energy companies and they do have a disproportionate influence in opposing any measures they disapprove of.  The ideas behind the passing of the act had cross-party support.  But, at the administration bit of the process were the legislation gets poured over by committees and civil servants, the levels of the caps proposed were obstructed at a variety of stages. The energy companies were able to lobby decision makers at various levels.  It’s an unequal process. Their money means they can open offices near to government, they can employ research and lobbying companies to put a shine in their case. They can find ‘experts’ to argue to keep operations as they are for maximum profits and dividends for shareholders.  Further to frighten politicians with job losses.

They are wrong. In Germany for example, they have created more that 300,000 jobs in renewable industries, more than those lost in older industries.  The UK efforts are lamentable. Mr Rees asks him about Vestas a company that used to operate on the Isle of Wight and left the UK because the market wasn’t sufficient for their turbine blade products. Mr Simpson sites another example of ineffectual policy. There are large wind farm of the Scottish coast, that cannot have their outputs connected to the grid for another 10 years!!  This is because of energy companies negotiating with government to give traditional generation priority for connection to the grid, over these renewable sources. Because they operate exclusively on their profit motive.

Energy companies are not even required to record and report power station emissions themselves. They are not doing this, because they are aware of possible public concerns. Mr Simpson says that governments aren’t insisting on such recording, even though there is an existing legal frameworks requiring them to do so. The Secretary of State for Energy now says he is intending to insist on reporting emission levels on new power stations.  But … this is no good since nearly 40% of carbon emissions are produced from the existing old coal-burning stations

On another issue, he says there were four carbon capture projects being considered in the UK.  Now that’s down to one and that has a question mark over it. E-on had pulled out as it being uneconomic to operate.

Mr Simpson says he was trying to get parliament to understand that it is government that should set standards and expect industry to follow them. Currently, things are the other way round. Further we must move to a statutory duty for companied to comply with regulations and for the public to have a right to know.

Mr Rees in finishing his examination asks, is there a shortfall on what is needed and what is done?  Yes, it’s why I stepped down from parliament. Government are not taking the measures required to protect us, our children or our grandchildren.

Miss Garry cross-examines. Referring to the Climate Change Act and Energy Acts 2008 & 2009, they set targets. Thus the various science committees and parliament ‘got it right’ in that session?  Yes, it was trailblazing legislation and these and other measures were looked at by other governments, as examples of good practice. But, the starting point of the UK was from the bottom, not much better than our position in the Eurovision Song Contest.

Can you say in terms of what individuals can do?  I have built an eco-house and produce more energy than I consume. Of course, this is beyond the capacity of many of us.  Mr Simpson then goes onto site the example of the Meadows estate in Nottingham. Saying that as a community, we helped to organise collectively to fit solar panels on roofs of houses and then selling power back to the grid.

Miss Gerry again seeks to point out that Mr Simpson took the community ‘with him’ through public consultation and engagement through organising many meetings. Her effort seems to be to seek to draw a distinction between these democratic methods and the direct action engaged in by the defendants. The Meadows community had to organise to overcome opposition and obstacles to achieve progress by engaging people in the locality, within their abilities.

Mr Simpson says that we have lots of information available to us, however, if we were on the Titanic, the main info we need is how to get off the boat. What people could do individually, just doesn’t match the 40% of emissions that power companies are creating.

She gets Simpson to agree that most of these efforts were achieved by knocking on lots of peoples’ doors. A team to canvas to communicate any message and to hold constituency meeting, surgeries etc…  He insists however, that people are so limited in what they can do individually, without parliament and government creating a framework that they can be effective within.  It is so unequal.  Energy companies are so much bigger and more able in lobbying than any individual or community group could handle. It is clear that to successfully lobby on an issue, people need to organise travel to London [sometime Europe], obtain science facts from experts, much time on research and parliamentary meetings.  It is beyond the capacity of the ordinary individual.  He sites the Suffragette movement and their campaign to get parliament to take measures on the wrong that needed to be put right.

Not responding to this point, Miss Gerry tries a few more examples to get Mr Simpson to agree that public engagement is best. He replies yes, it is best.  But since politics sometimes ignores them and their concerns, people need to protest as well !!!

Mr Rees re-examines:  What CO2 emission reduction have power companies actually made? None, to very little.  There was some reduction because of the loss of manufacturing, the older industries.  More recently, the recession means a reduction in the manufacturing output and this can expect to lead to a reduction also. But not, due to any intervention by the energy companies. Because of European Union directives, some of the older power stations may be forcibly closed, but this may result in a ‘dash for gas’.

Mr Rees asks Alan Simpson: Nothing personal … but in your experience do politicians do what they say they’ll do? Do they sometimes lie?  Grins all round  Its obvious that so many times, targets and policy remain politically aspirational, not what they’ll actually do.

Concluding with this witness, Mr Rees asks: will knocking on doors, really change any opinions of the power companies.  No, of course not.

He made a statement in finishing:
“There is, in my opinion, an indisputable democratic deficit in [government] having power, but refusing to use it, even to require power stations to audit their annual carbon emissions and the energy efficiency of each power station.  It is simply not coherent to argue that any of the governments commitments amount to a coherent plan for carbon emission reductions.  This is particularly true within the timescale in which emissions reductions have to be made.  Climate change protestors are in my view, absolutely right to argue that we cannot continue with a ‘business as usual’ approach to UK carbon emissions, without threatening the very prospects of existence for future generations”.

Alan Simpson [former MP, Nottingham South]      http://www.alansimpson.org

Friends of the Earth  http://www.foe.co.uk

++

After lunch, a live video link is established from the Crown Court to the House of Commons. Mr Rees for the defence then introduces Caroline Lucas MP for Brighton and Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.

She is a member of the all party Environmental Audit Committee, responsible for evaluating governments operations in meeting its objectives.

Prior to the UK elections in May 2010, between 1999 – 2010 was a Member of the European Parliament, Green MEP for The South East Region. She is also the Green Coordinator on the Climate Change Committee to reduce the impact of the aviation industry on the environment

Mr Rees get her to confirm that there is no serious challenge by elected members in either the UK or European Community that climate change is happening and that it is human driven. But, there is a huge difference between what politicians say and what actually happens. He asks are the targets that are set, commensurate with the perceived threat by emissions and the need for reductions. She says no. We know of the need to keep well within the 2 degC rise beyond which a tipping point will be reached. However, with businesses desire to maintain their activities, there is now no prospect of this if ‘business as usual’ continues.

Rees asks Ms Lucas, in Europe through its political structures, is it easy or difficult to get policy changes? Very difficult she says, it is a very unequal battle. Large companies lobby successfully and have such privileged access to committees and the European Parliament, than individuals or groups, and even the UK parliament gets.

Renewables and cleaner alternatives are currently more expensive and money is sometimes even found coming from a countries aid budgets. Further, sometimes doesn’t even arrive after being pledged.

Moving on to the emission trading schemes. These operate by making allocations to different industrial sectors. In practice these are open to much abuse since a rich company can buy their way out of their agreed obligations. Credits bought from poorer countries.  When the European Union require a reduction in emission by X%, much of that will be bought from developing countries, all resulting as ‘business as usual’.

Ms Lucas is asked: Are there penalties for exceeding agreed targets? No, such plans have never had a sufficient majority in the European Parliament and such ideas have always been defeated.

She moves onto describing the situation about Vestas, a company making wind turbine blades, that was based on the Isle of Wight and closed. The company couldn’t make a viable return on selling their product. There was simply a lack of a market for turbine blade in the UK. This of course is symbolic of government efforts in encouraging alternatives. A comparison in the use of renewables in other countries demonstrate out inadequate response. Further, the National Grid is centralised and makes it so difficult for renewable alternatives to adequately contribute.

Kyoto agreements are about to expire and there is no architecture in place to replace it.  Without the United States on-board, any proposals will be ineffective. Copenhagen was very disappointing, there was a complete absence of any binding agreement and will not deal with emission reductions within the required timescale. With regard to Cancún, Mexico happening now, expectations are rock-bottom. Agreements to reduce emissions are not even on the agenda, simply not on the table.

Mr Rees asks about current political interest. Lucas says that at a recent UK parliamentary debate, 12 MP’s attended. She is disparaging about this. No politics seems to be taking notice of these immediate tipping points and demonstrates a national complacency on such issues.

Miss Gerry cross-examines [well I think that’s what it was, she seemed to me to reinforce this last point]. She opens in pointing out that the Prime Minister David Cameron, David Beckham and Princes William are all in Zurich, Switzerland, presenting the British bid for a football match, instead of being in Cancún, Mexico. Newspapers and television are full of Zurich and not Cancún. She says that more of the public interest appears to be on football, rather than on climate change. Lucas explains that people feel a remoteness, in that individuals ability to influence European policy processes

Caroline Lucas MP, Leader of the Green Party      http://www.carolinelucas.com

Green Party     http://www.greenparty.org.uk

UK Parliament Environmental Audit Committee
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/environmental-audit-committee/eacom

Snowing much outside, court rises a little early. [14:45]

Ratcliffe on Trial Blog    http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

No Ratcliffe trial today, snow seizes everything up, jurors couldn’t make it in …. we all go home.

Caroline Lucas MP tomorrow via a video link.

30 November 2010     Nottingham Crown Court

Snowing much today, resulting a couple of jury members being late to court. We eventually start after a couple of hours delay.

Edward Rees QC for the defence calls another defendant to the witness box. Mr SC.

After introductions he reminds us of the prosecutions remark yesterday Miss Gerry “suggested that the money that was spent on the action would have been better off hiring Cheryl Cole to model second hand fashions”.  SC standing in the witness box and looking quite dapper, he says that his tweed suit and all his cloths were in fact purchased from second hard charity shops.

SC has worked as an freelance environmental researcher for the last 10 years. He had also been on the Greenpeace employed staff for 2 years.  He has a degree in Applied Biology.  Additionally, he has served as a Parish Counsellor in Bradwell in the Peak District, Derbyshire for 4 years. He has been speaking on environmental issues to schools and public meetings.  To Mr Rees’ surprise he says he also had organised tree planting weekends.  Explaining, he said Treesponsibility provided a hands-on community involvement to take practical action on an environment matter.  Trees help bind soil and help prevent erosion and assist in minimising flooding.  There are intense pressures on the Peak District, with the volume of visitors and had worked on public transport issues there.

While working with Greenpeace, during 4 -5 years, he had been concerned with and researched energy generation employing different fuels and supplies to the National Grid. Mr Rees asks, what do you conclude from your research? SC says that he believes that we are close to a number of the tipping points that Dr Hansen had described yesterday, accelerating climate changes.  The consequences?  Well unless we take measures to reduce CO2 emissions we will reach such tipping points.

SC says having been at the very first COP in Berlin in 1995 [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].  All conferences were doing was people simply engaging in an ‘on-going process’ without end.  Moving onto Kyoto, there were no binding agreements achieved and did not include USA and China. President Bush would not ratify any such agreements. SC says that unless big emitters like the USA etc join in, then all efforts will fail to achieve any of the required effects. From Kyoto to Copenhagen, he explained that his experience of the COP process had left him disillusioned with its effectiveness, and how when the Ratcliffe occupation had been planned in the run up to the Copenhagen summit, the activists already had a very pessimistic outlook on the likelihood of it achieving much. This pessimism was unfortunately proven to be well-placed.

We are now at the point with a conference meeting again at Cancum, Mexico. But politics remains impotent. With such intransigent s, nothing is going to happen at least for another 2 years to the next presidential election
When Mr Rees asked why he had attempted to shut the station down.  He responded, “to achieve the largest savings in emissions that we physically could”. He referred to the Stern review figure of the damage of one tonne of carbon at £50 and that therefore if they managed to stop 150,000 tonnes of carbon, it would amount to savings of £7.5 million. He didn’t see what else he could do to effect this much of a saving. 150,000 toms might not be much when compared globally, but it is a significant amount none the less.

Mr Rees turns to the police raid on the Iona School. SC saying that even though on their arrival, the police were offered access and keys, they continued to batter at outside and the inside doors causing damage. He had earlier given a briefing to the groups, reassuring them that the action will have little effect on the total grid.  The lights will remain on.

The plan was to split into groups. He describes the operation of the coal conveyors, taking coal to the plants for crushing and pulverising and onto its storage in hoppers.  There is held there about 6 – 8 hours of coal burning capacity. This would therefore allow for the controlled shutdown of the plant ,rather than having it bought to a crashing stop. There was no intention to do that.

The conveyors were to be stopped and people would be locked onto the equipment using the tubes. Climbers would also mount plant.  Another group would also have gone to the control room to explain the action to staff. All groups would have the relevant safety equipment, hard hats, hi-vis vests and the rest, and all had received an appropriate safety briefing.

After court returned from lunch, Mr Rees asks SC about what it means that the Ratcliffe Power Station had a ‘black start’ capacity.  That it had a small power station adjacent to start the main station in the event of a complete failure of the National Grid.

Cross-examining, Miss Gerry asks if closed down the station, would that not have an influence on the grid? A minor loss in scale, the light would remain on.  If that was the case, Miss Gerry suggests that it would not have saved the 150,000 tons claimed.  All that would happen would that another station would be fired up to replace lost generation, also creating yet more emissions.  SC claimed that it would be reasonable to expect the replacing stations to be gas fired, since as coal would be cheaper in generation, those stations would already be running.

Moving onto the press release, Miss Gerry keeps trying to suggest that shutting down a ‘black start’ facility was alarming to the public if they had known about it. This was not mentioned in the press release. SC says there are many other such stations, so grid security was maintained.

When the police arrested and questioned you, why not tell them more of your motives and background that you have told us today? He says we had all received legal briefing to make ‘no comment’ to questions in interview.

Gerry then refers to SC previous experience with campaigning about open cast coal mining. She implies this was a model of reasonable behaviour in public engagement on an issue.  But, that this Ratcliffe action was conducted in secret and certainly wasn’t reasonable.

With more snow falling outside and travel chaos assured … the court rises early

The case continues a bit more …….. etc

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int

Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

Ratcliffe on Trial Blog    http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

Onwards … >

At 11.00am barrister, Mr Edward Rees QC opens the case for the defence. He calls the first witness, one of the defendants SS.

She has been employed by Greenpeace for 8 years, although, this was not an ‘official’ Greenpeace action.  In fact she took a short holiday in order to do it. Money had been raised by an assortment of donations.  She said that her attitudes about climate change had developed over the last 10 years but her involvement with Greenpeace and other influences. She sited a pamphlet she remembered reading in 2001 titled ‘Millions at Risk’ that was one of her first awakenings about the nature of the likely consequences of climate change.

SS mentions Dr. James Hansen as another influence and an earlier publication ‘Climate Change and Trace Gases’ as impressing on the need for change.

She says she was part of a team that presented climate change issues to political party conferences, sometimes including the head of the Meteorological Office.

For her, there is little doubt that there is a link between different amounts of carbon in the atmosphere and the resultant climatic changes.  Another work sited to illustrate these concerns: Mark Lynas – Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.

Mr Rees asks her, what are climate changes causes?
The emitting of far to much CO2 by burning fossil fuels since the industrial revolution. Coal IS the biggest contributor to these changes and the most polluting.  The resulting CO2 causes changes in the composition of the atmosphere.  Interacting with the CO2, the suns rays then create a ‘greenhouse effect’ as more heat is absorbed.

SS goes on to explain the additional concern of ‘tipping points’. These are thresholds beyond which climate change spirals out of control. Instead of linear relationships,  conditions change beyond predictions and control. Reductions in carbon emissions are thus required now. We could be within 10 years of tipping points being reached before irreversibility.  Within the 8 years with Greenpeace as a climate campaign assistant, she has been a political advisor to politicians of all parties. Greenpeace however is non-political and supports no particular parties.

She goes onto to explain meeting with groups like the Environmental Audit Committee and party conferences.  Mr Rees is showing that SS had engaged in the political process and not engaged in the ‘bit of the jolly’ the prosecution were trying to suggest.  SS had previously met with environment ministers, Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor. Members of the European Parliament MEP’s in meetings about European Environmental Targets,  and the attempts to influence politicians to engage in CO2 limiting processes.  But as far as she could see, little change was affected. She now works as a forest campaigner dealing with issues of de-forestation.

Mr Rees asks what has that got to do with climate change?   Forests by absorbing CO2  assist in keeping the balance. Forest burning contributes to CO2 emissions and a ‘domino effect’ is brought about. Trees store and absorb carbon, thus less trees = less CO2 absorbed.  Half of all species in the world are to be found in the Amazon.  Effects of climate changes would be unknown in the region.

SS says she is also aware of frightening projections in the reduced scale of the ice caps, perhaps in her lifetime. Again, there is a potential tipping point.  The ice will thus reflect less heat. The resultant ‘darker oceans’ will absorb more heat, accelerating the process of further melting. The consequences are unknown, of the excessive heating of the oceans. The collective processes are leading to organisms ‘soaking up’ less carbon.

Climate change is leading to an increase in flooding worldwide. She has had some personal experience of this. The burning of coal and the resulting carbon emitted is causally linked to this increase in flooding. It is an alarming prospect and it is necessary to think about alternatives like, wind and solar power.

E-on are burning coal because it’s cheaper.  When dealing with politicians she is very pessimistic about their political will to bring about the required changes. Going on to the Kyoto Treaty, the international agreement to limit greenhouse gases., she points out that it has not bought about the required restrictions. With limited ratifications, the USA had watered down meaningful requirements and politicians remained intransient.  SS says this had made her very pessimistic about the ability of politicians to affect change. On to the Copenhagen Conference, there is still no optimism in setting target or agreements of the required changes that are needed.

The proposed Ratcliffe action occurred before Copenhagen but she was aware of limitations on the build up to the Conference. Of course the conference didn’t result in any agreement on targets. To this day, this remains the case.  She says politics is clearly hopeless in bringing about changes and she remains pessimistic about bring about the required changes by political argument.  Politicians are ‘carrying on’ without view to the consequences.

Thus, she takes direct action. She did so to save 150,000 tons in carbon, that Ratcliffe emits a week.  Every ton counts towards effects and deaths. Thus stopping emission even for this short time, will saves lives, species, flooding, peoples’ livelihoods and property. Dealing with the proposed action, SS was part of the planning. Since Mid January 2009 to their arrest in April planning continued with the associated timeline. Later, she gives a briefing at the Iona School, in the legal system and advice on arrest. This is based on the Climate Camp ‘bust card’ with advice to remain silent on questioning.  The defendants followed this advice.

On the day, people were to split into groups, some would lock onto the coal conveyors, some to climb a chimney. Entrance was to be achieved by simply driving through the front gate, only minimal opposition was to be expected since this would have been on the Bank Holiday weekend.

The Black team were to head for the conveyor, press the emergency stop button and occupy that plant.
Green team would climb a chimney, SS said she was part of that team. The object was to prevent the re-starting of the station. She said her main object was to stop emissions but realised there would be press interest and would make the most of it.

Orange group to occupy the gates.

Silver group to surround the chimney.

Gold group to go to the control room and to explain action to staff. With a view to advising on safety measures.

Mr Rees takes her back to the school and the police action. The police broke in casing the damage previously described to the school.  Those present caused none of the resulting damage. Police would not let supporting groups back into the school to clean up after events. Preferring that the owners claimed on the insurance, adding to the costs of the operation of course.

Miss Felicity Gerry for the prosecution starts her cross examination. Confirming SS was involved in elements of the planning of the operations. Agreeing she was and confirming she was conspiring to close down the power station. Gerry seeks to divide the defendants into ‘chiefs and indians’ but this wasn’t accepted.

Miss Gerry went on to the ‘Ecological Show Stoppers’ Leaflet. This document was a complete sham. A cover to assemble the group. Just going to a workshop if challenged. Some people knew what they were going to without specifics, others were curious.

The prosecution tries to suggest no carbon would in fact be saved ! SS replies that if they had been successful a gas-fired station might have been started instead with less CO2 resulting. The object was also to highlight the proposed construction of the Kingsnorth Station. But the reason for going to Ratcliffe was because it was owned by E-on and the second largest emitter of CO2 in the UK.

Miss Gerry then goes on to highlight efforts that people made in hiding laptops, sim cards phones etc, and trying to flush materials down the toilet. Defendants did all this because they knew their action were unreasonable.. Legal briefings were necessary  because they knew they were committing a crime.  SS responds that there is a difference between trespassing as against the crimes against the lives and conditions of millions of people.

Attempts to say activists were on the fringes of society and actions can result in disengaging the public.  By taking such direct action, there is a risk of loosing public support for an issue. She seeks to marginalise their efforts.

The prosecution returns to criticising the defences argument of an existing ‘democratic deficit’. Miss Gerry suggests all are remiss in not taking every opportunity in engaging with the public in argument in a variety of groupings.

The prosecution then went on to suggest a bizarre list of ways that the activists could better have spent their time.
•    Woman’s Institute
•    Scout Groups
•    Police Federation
•    School
•    Universities
•    Factories
•    Trade Unions
•    Conservative Party meetings
•    Canvasing for politicians
•    Bingo Halls

Establishing her own credentials Miss Gerry does this by letting the jury know that she bought second hand clothes and had a compost toilet, before the judge told her that her personal life wasn’t relevant to the court case.

She cited Paul McCartney and Coldplay’s Chris Martin as examples of effective environmentalism, through their involvement with ‘Meat Free Mondays’. Instead of closing down power stations, she suggested that the defendants would be better off searching for celebrity endorsements for the likes of ‘Turn-off Tuesdays” or “Switch-Off Sundays.” Finally, she suggested that the money that was spent on the action would have been better off hiring Cheryl Cole to model second hand fashions!!!!!!!

SS does agree that people do need to take individual action in their own lives.  But this is simply note enough, next to the size of the issues / problems.

For the defence, Mr Rees again get SS to reiterate the scale and magnitude of the required changes. That celebrity endorsement and action that people , just as individuals can make is not enough.

Witness SS stands down and court retires till after lunch.

IPCC Report: Millions At Risk Of Hunger And Water Stress In Asia Unless Global Greenhouse Emissions Cut
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410134724.htm

James Hansen – National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Goddard Institute for Space Studies
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html

Mark Lynas – Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet
http://www.marklynas.org/books

From Cancún to Copenhagen: A year in climate change : As delegates from around the world descend on Cancún, Mexico, we reflect on 12 months of climate talks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/nov/29/cancun-climate-change-talks-copenhagen?CMP=twt_fd

In the afternoon, the defence calls Dr. James E. Hansen, Head of National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Goddard Institute.  Mr Rees takes the jury through his large number of accolades and his experience since 1977.  He advised the Climate Task Force during the Bush administration on the role of humans in accelerating climate changes.

He published work titled ‘Storm of my Grandchildren’,  Mr Rees asks about the reference to grandchildren?  It takes decades for full effects of any changes to take place. But it’s put to him you can’t predict the weather a week ahead in Nottingham, so how on earth can we predict these climate effects decades ahead.

There are trends. For the planet to be in equilibrium, energy radiating would be equal to the energy received. Human processes have been upsetting this balance. CO2, methane and other gases absorb infra-red. There is little effect on the radiation coming in but it does prevent heat leaving at the same rate, acting like a blanket around the earth. That all is getting warmer, there is no significant challenge to these concepts.

Additionally, there is an amplifying feedback.  As the planet becomes warmer, the ice surface diminishes.  Thus the larger area of ‘darker oceans’ heats up faster.  A slow change but inexorable and would take millennium to return to an equilibrium.  As oceans become warmer, it gives up CO2 to the atmosphere, another amplifying feedback.

Mr Rees asks how we know this process is anything to do with human interventions.  It is now clear that human influences far exceed natural changes. 10,000 times faster than changes before the industrial revolution.  Referring to changes since the last ice age, there will of course be natural changes, but humans are contributing to these cycles.

Asked what if nothing is done, what’s the impact? Dr Hansen says disintegration of the ice sheets, extermination of species and taking tens of thousands of years to regenerate.  Thus, our grandchildren will inherit a more desolate planet than we have inhabited. We are approaching tipping points when these processes will become alarming.  There is disagreement about the rates of change, but, large agreement about it consequences.   Being shown many maps, graphs and charts, Dr Hansen interprets ranges of effects leading to ocean rising levels. In Europe, there are higher human populations living next to coasts because of historical maritime commerce. There are of course grave effects awaiting the millions of Bangladesh and numerous islands. The IPCC says that ‘business as usual’ will result in catastrophic rises in ocean levels within this century.

Mr Rees says we now come to ‘King Coal’ why is this fuel significant?  Dr Hansen say that it’s because the stocks are so much larger than oil and gas reserves in the earth. Further all resources are finite, with the approach of ‘peak oil’, oil and gas will become more expensive as it becomes more problematic to extract dwindling reserves. Burning coal is the dirtiest of fuels and should be left in the ground. We simply must phase out coal burning for energy generation.

Why is urgent to take action now?  It’s because it’s plain that we are approaching these tipping points, and we need to limit amounts of additional CO2 emissions or it wont be possible to avoid passing them.  Thus causing distress to future generations.  Resulting in imbalances in processes for a very long time. Current governmental target are meaningless without phasing out coal burning.  ‘Business as Usual’, might lead to 5degC increase in this century and the planet wont look like it has for the last 10,000 years.

Dr Hansen says it is obvious that unless coal is not burnt, then governments are lying in what they say are their stated aims.  I can see why young people are upset when faced with such deception.  Referring to the fluctuations in climate described in the many graphs, charts and maps it is apparent humans are changing what is normal.

Miss Gerry cross-examines.  Dr Hansen says he’s done his best to educate the public on shortcoming governments. They are mainly influenced in policy by fossil fuel industries. The public needs to be better informed to thus bring about political pressure.  He appears pessimistic that governments are listening to peoples concerns.

If we shut all the power stations, and coal mines, what are the alternatives?  At present, we don’t have an alternative. Simply improving energy efficiency is not enough.  What can ordinary people do?  Influence politicians. Burning materials slower wont do it. People see companies lobbying for ‘business as usual’ as having a disproportionate  effect on policy.  Deniers and contrarians are given equal weight, but they shouldn’t be since opinions are well out of proportions in numbers believing their is nothing to worry about.

He says the media is failing to give the public an explanation on these issues.  Sometimes they are funded by corporations with their own agendas.  The public cannot hold the politician to account if they are under informed.

Miss Gerry asks if we carry on, are we all going to die? Dr Hansen says yes, we are all going to die anyway. But during the lifetime of our children, there will be many changes to our planets distress.

Governments continue to ignore their responsibility to young people.

There was then a ripple of applause from the public and disapproving looks from court officials. You’re not supposed to do this in courts!

Dr. James E. Hansen :  Storms of My Grandchildren:
The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity.   ISBN-13: 978-1608192007

Dr. James E. Hansen, Head of National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Goddard Institute http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

The case continues a bit more …….. etc

“On the issue of coal-fired power stations they are right … carbon emissions will kill us all … As politicians we do not grasp the urgency of scientific warnings about how little time we have left to radically transform our whole thinking about sustainable energy systems. Inevitably, this leaves the challenge to be picked up by the public rather than by parliament. In doing so, it just doesn’t help if we end up locking up those who would save the planet rather than those who drive us towards climate crises.”

Alan Simpson
Former MP for Nottingham South

In the early hours of April 13th 2009 a highly expensive and widely condemned policing operation saw 114 climate campaigners arrested on suspicion of conspiring to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage. In what has been deemed the largest ever ‘pre-emptive’ arrest, hundreds of police burst into a meeting room where plans were being made to safely shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the UK’s third largest coal fired power station.

Had the action gone ahead it would have stopped around 150 thousand tonnes of carbon emissions from being released into the atmosphere, while drawing attention to the failure of provided democratic channels.

Through invasive surveillance police had gathered information on the activists, pinpointed their location, and interrupted the meeting meaning the action never went ahead. The campaigners were held for over twenty hours before being released onto the streets of Nottingham in the middle of the night, many with their phones and money confiscated.

All charges were dropped for the majority of the 114, but 26 have been committed to Nottingham Crown Court on a charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass. The maximum sentence for this offence is three months in prison, a fine of £2,500, or both. All entered a plea of not guilty.

Six of the defendants hadn’t yet decided whether or not to take part in the action when the police arrived on the scene. They were arrested anyway, just for thinking about climate action!
Their trial starts on January 10th 2011, and will be an important case with regard to freedom of protest in the UK. Watch this site for more information closer to the time.

The remaining 20 defendants admit that they planned to shut down the power station, but argue that they are not guilty because they were acting to prevent the greater crimes of death and serious injury caused by climate change. This is called a ‘defence of necessity’. Their trial starts on the 22nd November 2010.

Why Necessity?

In addition to slowing Ratcliffe’s carbon emissions, this action was to be part of a wider movement for global environmental justice. You only have to look at the floods in Pakistan and the droughts in Russia to see that climate change is hitting those least responsible for it the hardest while putting all of our futures in jeopardy.

Around the world governments are failing to address the climate crises. Instead they protect business as usual as they continue to compete for endless economic growth. This is in spite of increasingly stark warnings from the scientific community of the cost of inaction. By allowing the coal to keep burning at dinosaurs like Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the UK government continues to evade its legal duty to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.

As we face the worst spending cuts in decades we have to ask why so many resources are being ploughed into monitoring climate campaigners, while so little is being done to create an environmentally and economically just future.

From the suffragettes to the civil rights movements, direct action has long been the pathway to change the world for the better. Those on trial are ordinary people experiencing the failures of our present political system, who remain determined to see action taken on climate change.

Hard Times – for Police Credibility
: Rounding off an extremely bad month (for them), the past 12 hours has been hard on police credibility as they try to address the fallout from the 24 November demos. First, they denied that a serving officer discharged a BCF halon fire extinguisher … point-blank into the faces of young demonstrators during the student demonstrations this past Wednesday.

Published: November 26, 2010 18:29 by supertimmy | iBeginShare.attachLink(‘share-tool-6141’, { link: ‘http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/6141‘, title: ‘Hard Times – for Police Credibility’

To all the university occupations
Some basic advice on Injunctions and Possession orders.

Published: November 26, 2010 20:03 by Green and Black Cross Legal Team | iBeginShare.attachLink(‘share-tool-6142’, { link: ‘http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/6142‘, title: ‘More legal advice for student occupations’, link_styl…

a splendid piece on issues and rights around street photography

Street Photography: Peter Jenkins

www.photographymonthly.com

A seminar Exploring Society’s Suspicions of Photographers
House of Parliament. London – Wednesday 27th October 2010

“Which law would that be, officer?” David Hoffman, photographer

How To Change Attitudes – Summary, John Toner, NUJ Freelance Organiser

“Which law would that be, officer?” Chez Cotton, Head of Police Misconduct Department, Bindmans LLP

“Which law would that be, officer?” Introduction by London Photographers’ Branch (LPB) Chair Jess Hurd.

“What makes you think you can take my picture?” Anna Mazzola, solicitor, Hickman and Rose.

“What makes you think you can take my picture?” Professor Chris Frost, Head of Journalism at Liverpool John Moores University

Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster introduces the parliamentary seminar “Who’s Afraid of Photographers?”

Will Street Photography still be around in five years time?

Continuing from yesterday, Barrister for the prosecution, Miss Felicity Gerry continued to hack her way in reading through the significant sized list of papers, maps, equipment and property. Laying out the sophistication of the plans.

We now got to the technical kit including
3x walkie-talkie radios [460hz] with approx. 3km range
Camcorders and batteries
A microwave transmitter. [Police experts suggesting that this equipment was for a directional video ‘downlink’.  The signal to be able to be received at a distance in line-of-sight. A compass was also listed, used to assist in this process.]
Assorted digital cameras
Laptop computers found secreted in various rooms within the school.
A ‘dongle’ to enable an internet connection.  The judge helpfully unplugged and held his dongle up for the jury to see!

{Yesterday, a bit of a chuckle went round the court, when the judge gave a short weather forecast; as there was concern about the bad weather today.  Pointing out that that he was the only one in court allowed to google!! }

Taken together with the equipment and preparation listing from yesterday, the prosecution’s comments have unveiled the extent of the 114’s safety measures. For example using gas detectors, respiratory protection, ear protection, as well as first aid kits. These details demonstrate the hard work and planning that went into an action that the prosecution have been trying to portray as ‘a bit of a laugh’.

On now to catering matters. There was fair amount of equipment found there, not belonging to the school. Miss Gerry introduces documents that mention ‘Veggies’ [yet again] and an order to supply 120 people over a week. Noted “don’t tell anyone about it” There is another paper presented quoting “At Veggies, we like a challenge” 

A while was now spent on a description of fingerprint evidence.  This was presented such to describe the positioning of the defendants dabs that had been found on assorted papers and folders and phones..

Miss Gerry now moves onto the positions and circumstances of the arrests made on the morning of the 13th April 2009 at the Iona School, Sneinton, Nottingham.  All 20 defendants were arrested cautioned and mostly remained silent.  They were taken to a variety of police stations across the region.

Although there would have been taped interviews, none were played in court.

She read to the jury, the words of the police caution:
“You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”.

Now, as the defendants had largely said nothing on their arrest or interviews, she seemed thus to be asking the jury to make an inference of their guilt.

Now, back into ‘list mode’ she starts to list the defendants arrest location, reference to the ‘no comment’ interviews of each and very long lists of seized personal property taken and returned.  Right down to assorted screws, pens, water bottles, biscuits, portions of cheese !! Descriptions of the police processing of times dates and places.  We get through the first few.  Mr Rees for the defence rises and asks if we need this level of details, but Miss Gerry says she has already summarised the material …. And perseveres for another hour or so!!

On a personal note, I was a bit perturbed during all this to discover that there was a police officer involved in the processing, called  one Detective Constable Lodge.  Uummmm!  I guess we might meet in the street sometime.

The monotony of this listing was broken briefly when Miss Gerry quoted the response of MS replying under caution said:

“There may be a bail-out for the banks,
but not for humanity with climate change.  Nature doesn’t do bail-outs”

Out of the corner of her eye, she saw me suddenly spring into action with my pen to get that down. She said that Mr MS has helped the press with the ‘quote of day’.

After lunch, further mention is made of legal advice papers. Listing documents such as the climate camp ‘bust card’ and papers including reference to ‘no comment’ advice.

In sum, Miss Felicity Gerry says that all 20 people were arrested at the Iona School on the 13th April 2009 as part of the larger group of 144 detained. That they conspired to carry out the action described. The prosecution closes.

The defence will open its case at 10.00am on Monday 29th November 2010.

Their first witness will be Dr. James E. Hansen, Head of National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Goddard Institute.  He will be arriving from the United States and is expected to give his opinions on climate change and mans influences on these processes.

the case still continues etc ……..

Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins [Feature]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/701

Ratcliffe conspiracy to trespass trial opens today
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/693

Ratcliffe Trial Day 2 – Prosecution’s Opening
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/702

Ratcliffe Trial Day 3 – Prosecution case continues
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/710

Ratcliffe Trial: Prosecution Opens [Feature 2]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/714

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

Barrister for the prosecution, Miss Felicity Gerry continued to outline their case.

Taking the jury further into the huge bundle of paper they’d been given to consider, she spent much time on the press release that had already been prepared ahead of the action intended.

She points out the press release notes describe the actions intended. They include element such as peaceful protest, trespass, the intent of climbing structures and securing access. Notes about the Ratcliffe power stations operations. Then there was another section drawing attention to the issues the then Energy Secretary Ed Milliband MP, who was considering an application for the construction of another coal-fired power station by E-on at that time.

Notes suggested that the protesters had researched issues for several months before their arrest to ensure the health and safety of themselves and others before engaging in the action. Further, to minimize power disruptions.

By reading out the press release, almost in its entirety to the court, I was struck in thinking that this was perhaps doing a lot of the defences work for them! I formed the impression of the great amount of care, consideration and research that had been put into the whole project. But i think the motive here is clearly to demonstrate the amount of premeditation and possible conspiracy that the prosecution allege had taken place.

Miss Gerry continued onto the question & answers leaflet that had also be found at the school. She again seemed to me to be suggesting that the depth of research, thought-out consequences, again demonstrated the premeditation and a conspiracy.

Another leaflet was introduced titled: ‘Important notice for people working at Ratcliffe Power Station’ intended to provide an explanation to workers about the action. On then to a media contact list prepared with the contact and phone number of a number of TV and newspaper journalist and newsrooms.

Further into the bundle, she introduces an assortment of papers, some torn up and reassembled by the police, found within various rooms in the Iona School. A flip chart paper and a couple of other bits and bobs. All describing aspects of the proposed action, amounting in fact, to an operational plan.

Miss Gerry spent some time describing the operation of a flow chart. Its object was to lay out what to do on arrival at the plant if challenged by worker or security / or not challenged. The arrangement of people into ‘task groups’ and how to proceed when confronted with a variety of obstacles.

The presence of ‘what to do if’ and arrest advice papers suggested that they intended to engage in illegal activities. Another note discovered referred to a company called Veggies “Please supply high calorific high density durable foods” individually packed but sometimes would be available for sharing. Food bags were discovered with days of the week written on them.

Great emphasis was put of another leaflet titled: Ecological Show Stoppers. Street theatre, Sunday 12th April 2009 Iona School, Sneinton, Nottingham.

After lunch we continue with a oh so long listing of equipment.  The back bench of the court has a large array of exhibits in plastic bags, all carefully presented by a court officer resplendent in blue sterile gloves. Unnecessary I thought, when holding ropes , bits of metals and wood which are all contained in plastic. But, me thinks, it all gives an air of crime, danger, presentation etc.

Although not absolutely everything seized, Miss Gerry tells the court that it is a sample to give a flavour of the materials involved.  She has the court officer display to the jury:
D-locks
Cycle steel rope locks
Climbing ropes, clips and harnesses [a variety of all-sorts]
Hard hats, masks and ear-defenders
A roll-able metal climbing ladder
‘Lock-on’ tubes [constructed from fire extinguisher casings, a steel tubes encased in concrete

Police photographs then presented in the bundle showing:
A hired gas detector
Steel device with handles to block a door
Assortment of power tools inc. cutting equipment, drills etc

Miss Gerry suggests that all this equipment would enable the defendants to carry out their stated aims to shut down the power station for a week.

Banners of varying sizes including the words:
For climate justice
2000 tons of carbon saved
Coal = Climate Disaster
No more coal

A sketch was also found showing how to hang a banner with ropes and weighting down with sandbags.

Crumbs!  Today was very much about lists. Lists of papers, equipment & kit,  personal items, sleeping bags, bedding etc etc etc etc ….. we are now onto vehicle. Hired from a variety of companies and locations.

An assortment of receipts for kit, tools, fuel, maps and routes.

It then took a while for her to describe the number of mobile telephones and an assortment of sim cards. Also some radio equipment. They were found in various places about the school and on people present there. All were unregistered and recently purchased. Effort was made in then explaining some of suggested links between them and numbers that had called each other.

We all adjourn until 10.30am tomorrow.

the case continues etc ……..

+++

Ratcliffe Trial Day 2 – Prosecution’s Opening
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/702

Ratcliffe conspiracy to trespass trial opens today
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/693

Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins [feature]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/701

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

After yesterdays administrations and argument, today started with the jury being introduced to the prosecutions main elements of the case. The indictment reads:

The Queen V 20x names. are charged as follows:
Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass, Contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

That .. between the 1st day of January 2009 and the 15th day of April 2009 conspired together and with others unknown to commit aggravated trespass.

Opening for the Prosecution, Miss Felicity Gerry invited the jury to write down “conspiracy, trespass, disruption, lawful activity”. Suggesting that if they find the defendants to have done this, then they are guilty of offence.

During the Easter weekend on 13th April 2009, 114 people were gathered together at the Iona School, Sneinton, Nottingham to plan and engage in a conspiracy to trespass at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.
Executing search warrants, Nottinghamshire Police mounted a major action Operation Aeroscope. Resulting in the arrest of all present. People had travelled from all over the country.  Documents recovered at the scene showed there was an agreed plan. To drive to the Ratcliffe power station, to climb the plant there and to display banners.  Thus they would disrupt the ‘lawful activity’ of the plant, it was hoped, for a week.  The crown claim the planned disruption was plainly a conspiracy. The police had recovered a press release prepared in advance demonstrating the intention of the defendants involved in this conspiracy.  Other documents found referred to food and supplies for the weeks occupation.

At this time the [then] Secretary of State for Energy Ed Milliband had application on his deck from companies wishing to build another power station.

This group had no intention of engaging in a democratic discussion on these issues and thus became involved in unreasonable direct action.  The press release included journalist contact list, thus to derive the maximum possible publicity for their actions.  Further, other document were found to be distributed to workers on the site to explain the groups actions in restricting to power stations operations.

The crown claim it is admitted by all, what their motives and intentions were.  specialist equipment seized included
10 vehicles
D-lock and steel rope cycle locks
climbing ropes and slings
heavy duty plastic carriers for food supplies etc
hard hats, Hi-vis vests
face masks
ladders
power tools
rucksacks
4x banners

Miss Gerry was critical saying defendant should address their remarks to MP’s on not in direct action with banners. Legal briefing were also discovered at the school, showing they knew they were committing crime. All defendants admit to being there.  There is no dispute between the parties.

Many believe the burning of fossil fuel is putting the planet in jeopardy.  Bu that is not what the trial is about.  It’s about what is a reasonable way to express their beliefs.  When arrested, they didn’t say that, but largely remained silent.

During her opening speech to the jury Miss Gerry kept eluding to the thought that direct action might be more fun than democracy.  There are many ways to disagree with policy.

“Is it really necessary to close down a power station when there are so many democratic means available?” – referencing a political process that has allowed the first member of the Green Party to become a Member of Parliament. ‘Was it more fun’ she asked, to plan this action or to vote for Zac Goldsmith? Did the defendants do all this, because they didn’t have a Glastonbury ticket?

At this point – a member of jury passed a note with three questions to the Judge. The prosecution finished their opening and the Judge left it to the Defence Counsel to answer.

Opening for the defence barrister, Edward Rees QC said: “Zac Goldsmith? Man Utd? Glastonbury? What is the relevance of these?” asked the Jury. The Mr Rees answered that there was none!!

The Defence referred back to the Prosecution’s ‘fighting talk’. I won’t go as far to say that the Prosecution’s remarks about the defendants were offensive – but to allege that the defendants don’t engage with the democratic process is not the case.

Ratcliffe-on-Soar was responsible for over 9 million tonnes of CO2 in 2007 and that this amount continues to rise. Don’t worry … politicians and energy companies have it all in hand.

They haven’t. The defendants believe authorities were failing to deal with the issue.  In their view there was inadequacy in the processes of dealing with climate change.  It is agreed the the protesters had a well ordered plan, suggesting that during the period of the planned occupation 150,000 tons of CO2 emissions would have been prevented.

The issue here is whether what they planned and intended to do, was in fact a crime..  The test is that action was reasonable in all the circumstances.  The jury are not to be asked to decide on competing climate change facts themselves.  As a matter of law, looking at what the defendants believed to be reasonably true.

There are matters such as tipping points that we simply don’t know the facts.  The defendant wish to err on the side of caution on these matters. There is in fact, a ‘democratic deficit’ in any action on climate change. Looking at the test of reasonableness, it was necessary to act.  In fact it might be considered that the discharge of CO2 is itself a crime.  The defence of necessity [duress of circumstances] is about preventing a greater damage.  It is not for the defendants to prove that they were reasonable, but for the crown to prove it was not.

Starting with the prosecution evidence, Miss Gerry takes the jury through the contents the bundle they had each been given. It contained assorted papers, plans, photographs, vehicle routes and catering arrangements.  A special mention of a company called ‘Veggies’ that had been contacted, asking for high calorific foods to be supplied.

She then went on to give a 10 min very basic description of the technical operation of a coal-fired power station and how it produces electricity.

She then called the first witness. Mr Raymond Henry Smith.  At that time, he was plant manager of the Ratcliffe power station, employed by E-on. He said he was called by police at 3am on 13th April 2009 to say that a police  operation had prevented the arrives of the demonstrators at the plant. Asked if they had arrived, what would the effect have been? He said the plant may have operated at reduced power or shut down,  This was the decision of the plant or duty manager on what to do in the circumstances.

Beginning his questioning, defence barrister, Edward Rees QC asks if the plant was in fact offline at that time. Mr Smith said it was.  He was questioned about E-on company decisions in its operations regarding market conditions, system demands, price of coal, all trying to elicit the idea that it was largely profit considerations in the companies operations. Mr Smith said he couldn’t answer as he was not qualified in these aspects. Mr Rees keeps suggesting that he does in fact know about such market conditions.  E-on also owns a number of gas turbine stations, and it was commercial considerations for the company to consider on which to operate for its best economy.  Its coal or gas stations could thus maintain supply as it likes.  Mr Rees does get Mr Smith to agree that it is largely market conditions dictating its operations and profitability but within current legislation.

Then questioned about carbon capture. It was suggested to him that E-on had pulled out of competition stating that it was not profitable.  In fact 30 of the most polluting stations, half were located in the UK.  But Mr Smith doesn’t know. He also wouldn’t say if he or the company believes that CO2 emission result in the effect of global warming.

Ratcliffe built in 1968 / 42 years old. But £ millions have been invested to improve efficiency. However Ratcliffe emissions had continued to rise. Mr Smith says that although efficiency has improved, more generation does result in still greater emissions.

Mr Smith said he had previously been aware at least 5 days before the activist planned actions. But he didn’t know if an injunction had been sought.  The witness stands down

For the prosecution again Miss Gerry introduces a video shot by police after all the defendant had been removed and the building had been searched. Now in daylight, we were shown room after room with some outside shots to give a sense of place and to demonstrate the buildings layout.  the jury had a map, correlating to the references on the video.  The place looked well disheveled and  I thought, were trying to show mess, damage and a lack of care of the building.  A door hanging off the hinges, holes in walls and doors etc.  Papers and property were displayed. I have to say that it was one of the most boring videos I’ve seen in a while! Some of the jury yawned … the judges’ eyes seemed to me to get heavier.

After this view, I found it hugely encouraging when the jury passed a note to the judge. When read out, they asked was the mess and damage to the door building etc caused by the protesters, or, the police during the conduct of the operation.  Prosecution agreed that yes, it was the police!!

She then went onto photos in the bundle, of food supplies in vehicles, more equipment, sleeping bags etc.

the case continues etc ……..

+++

Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins [feature]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/701

Ratcliffe conspiracy to trespass trial opens today
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/693

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

18 months after 114 people were initially arrested at the Iona School in Sneinton, 20 climate change activists have begun a month-long trial today. They were originally arrested on 13th April 2009.

On Monday 22 November 2010, they have appeared to answer charge at Nottingham Crown Court: that they conspired together to cause aggrevated trespass at the Radcliffe Power Station. The trial is expected to last 4 weeks.

On Monday 22 November 2010, they have appeared to answer charge at Nottingham Crown Court: that they conspired together to cause aggrevated trespass at the Radcliffe Power Station. The trial is expected to last 4 weeks.

Mass Arrest of 114 Climate Activists in Raid in Nottingham
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427471.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427496.html

Today has largely been taken up with agreeing a timetable for the progress of the case. Arguement about whether legal representatives are to visit the Ratcliffe site.  The defence would like to, to get a ‘feel for the location’. The prosecution thinks this un-neccesary, since no one was arrested there. E-on didn’t want to co-operate with this visit, health and safety implications etc … The swearing in of the jury has also now been completed.  Opening statement from counsel will begin tomorrow.

>> Statement from their blog:

Supporters gathered outside Nottingham Crown Court holding signs which read, “I would stop emissions too”.

Anyone in the Nottingham area who would like to meet the defendants or help out can come along to the SUMAC centre (NG7 6HX) each evening after the trial at 7pm for dinner at People’s Kitchen.

The arrests were thought to be the biggest ever pre-emptive arrest of environmental activists. The defendants are charged with Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass for planning to safely shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station for a week and in doing so stopping 150,000 tonnes of CO2 from being emitted. While they admit the intent, they maintain that they are not guilty of of a crime.

The defence will show that the activists acted out of necessity, to prevent death and serious injury. According to official sources, 300,000 people per year already lose their lives due to the effects of climate change and half a billion are at “extreme risk”. (http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=9668)

Rebecca Quinn, 32, who was one of those arrested in April but later had the charges dropped, said, “Climate Change is hitting those least responsible for it the hardest. Low-lying island nations are already seeing salt water encroach on their farm land, and in recent years we have seen an increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Coal is the dirtiest method of electricity generation, and must be stopped. To avoid a climate crisis, we must put people before profit. In the face of government apathy and the failure of the Copenhagen conference, it is ordinary people taking direct action who are desperately trying to avoid a bleak future of flooding, drought, crop failure and water shortages.”

James Hansen, the high profile scientist who is the Head of NASA’s Goddard Institute, is one of the many expert witnesses who will testify during the trial at Nottingham Crown Court. The leading climatologist will guide the jury through the complexities of climate science and explain how coal burning is jeopardizing the lives of millions.

Caroline Lucas MP, Leader of the Green Party will give expert evidence about the failure to achieve action on climate change domestically and within the EU parliament through more conventional political means. It will be argued that the defendants had no alternative but to physically stop the power station emitting CO2, having exhausted other channels such as lobbying, campaigning, and attending marches.

The defendants are a diverse mix of people of varying ages from 21 to 45. Living across the UK, they work in teaching, science, computing, and many other areas. 114 people were originally arrested on 13th April 2009, but most subsequently had their charges dropped.

For regular updates on the trial see http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

>>

Notes from the previous trial held at Nottingham Magistrates Court from 14 – 16th January 2008
Ratcliffe Power Station : Court Case Reporting
[addionally, this post contains some collected links to past coverage of the issues surrounding the Ratcliffe Power Station and concern about its operations]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/zines/670

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

the trial continues etc………

Ratcliffe Trial: Nottingham Crown Court beginning Monday 22nd November 2010

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ratcliffeontrial.pdf

In the early hours of April 13th 2009 a highly expensive and widely condemned policing operation saw 114 climate campaigners arrested on suspicion of conspiring to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage. In what has been deemed the largest ever ‘pre-emptive’ arrest, hundreds of police burst into a meeting room where plans were being made to safely shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the UK’s third largest coal fired power station.

Had the action gone ahead it would have stopped around 150 thousand tonnes of carbon emissions from being released into the atmosphere, while drawing attention to the failure of provided democratic channels.

Through invasive surveillance police had gathered information on the activists, pinpointed their location, and interrupted the meeting meaning the action never went ahead. The campaigners were held for over twenty hours before being released onto the streets of Nottingham in the middle of the night, many with their phones and money confiscated.

All charges were dropped for the majority of the 114, but 26 have been committed to Nottingham Crown Court on a charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass. The maximum sentence for this offence is three months in prison, a fine of £2,500, or both. All entered a plea of not guilty.

Six of the defendants hadn’t yet decided whether or not to take part in the action when the police arrived on the scene. They were arrested anyway, just for thinking about climate action! Their trial starts on January 10th 2011, and will be an important case with regard to freedom of protest in the UK. Watch this site for more information closer to the time.

The remaining 20 defendants admit that they planned to shut down the power station, but argue that they are not guilty because they were acting to prevent the greater crimes of death and serious injury caused by climate change. This is called a ‘defence of necessity’. Their trial starts on the 22nd November 2010.

Why Necessity?

In addition to slowing Ratcliffe’s carbon emissions, this action was to be part of a wider movement for global environmental justice. You only have to look at the floods in Pakistan and the droughts in Russia to see that climate change is hitting those least responsible for it the hardest while putting all of our futures in jeopardy.

Around the world governments are failing to address the climate crises. Instead they protect business as usual as they continue to compete for endless economic growth. This is in spite of increasingly stark warnings from the scientific community of the cost of inaction. By allowing the coal to keep burning at dinosaurs like Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the UK government continues to evade its legal duty to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.

As we face the worst spending cuts in decades we have to ask why so many resources are being ploughed into monitoring climate campaigners, while so little is being done to create an environmentally and economically just future.

From the suffragettes to the civil rights movements, direct action has long been the pathway to change the world for the better. Those on trial are ordinary people experiencing the failures of our present political system, who remain determined to see action taken on climate change.

Ahead of the coming Ratcliffe Trial, I thought it helpful to remind all of the last Ratcliffe trial involving the defence of ‘necessity’ or ‘duress of circumstances

The trial held at Nottingham Magistrates Court from 14 – 16th January 2008
11 defendants go on trial charged with ‘aggravated trespass’ an offence under section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In that they trespassed and then disrupted people engaged in a lawful activity.
Judgement delivered on 25th February 2008.

This is a .PDF of my collected notes, assorted coverage and the judgement.

Download this zine as PDF

Additionally, these are some collected links to past coverage of the issues surrounding the Ratcliffe Power Station and concern about its operations:

Nottingham Spring into Action :: Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/367714.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/367736.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/367757.html

Did Climate Change Cause Floods around Nottinghamshire?
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374448.html

‘Clean’ Coal On Trial [Feature]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/01/389386.html

Ratcliffe Power Station Court Case : Nottingham Magistrates [day 1-3]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389467.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389535.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389654.html

Ratcliffe Power station Climate Action, The Verdict
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392323.html

Ratcliffe Power station Climate Action, The Judgement
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/392833.html

Fossil Fools Blockade E.On Offices in Nottingham
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395382.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395403.html

Fossil Fools Blockade E.On Offices Surveillance and Specialist Equipment
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395429.html

Police Searches Houses After Arrests At E.On Blockade
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395366.html

Fossil Fools Take On E.ON In Nottingham [Feature]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395424.html

Nottingham’s part of 48 hours of nationwide action against E.ON
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/11/413951.html

Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station Still Steams Ahead
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414383.html

E-on Nottingham ‘Fossil Fools’ protest: prosecution offers no evidence
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/418610.html

Testing a post from Nokia E72 mobile phone.
now can use login at http://m.wordpress.com

Cool eh!

Police, photographers and the Law EPUK

http://www.epuk.org/Resources/958/police-photographers-and-the-law

Police, photographers and the Law
Civil Rights lawyer Shamik Dutta answers fifteen key questions on police powers and photography in Britain today. Photographs Jules Mattsson and David Hoffman.

Nothing in this guide can be certain to prevent a photographer or journalist being arrested unlawfully by a police officer. However, the guide may help photographers to know what their rights are so they can discuss those rights and the policies from which they derive with police officers. In doing so, it is hoped that photographers can continue pursuing their own lawful activities and police officers’ time can be focused, elsewhere, on unlawful activity.
What is an officer obliged to tell me before a search?

According to Paragraph 3.8 of Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, before any search an officer must take reasonable steps to give you the following information:

* You should be informed that you are being detained for the purposes of a search;
* You should be given the officer’s name (or warrant or other identification number) and the name of the police station to which the officer is attached;
* You should be told the legal search power which is being exercised;
* You should be given a clear explanation of (a) the purpose of the search in terms of the article or articles for which there is a power to search; and (b) in the case of powers requiring reasonable suspicion, the grounds for that suspicion; or (c) in the case of powers which do not require reasonable suspicion (for example s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or s.60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), the nature of the power and of any necessary authorisation and the fact that it has been given.

What are the most commonly used search powers?

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, allows the police to search you if they have reasonable suspicion that you have an offensive weapon or an article which you intend to use for burglary, theft, taking a motor vehicle, fraud or criminal damage. They also have the power to search you for bladed articles or prohibited fireworks.

Section 23(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 gives a constable the power to search you if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are in possession of a controlled drug or evidence of drug use. In those circumstances they may seize and detain, for the purposes of proceedings under this Act, anything found in the course of the search which appears to the constable to be evidence of an offence under this Act.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act gives officers the power to search you without reasonable suspicion, but only in a designated area and only for offensive weapons.

Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives a constable the power to stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives officers the power to search anyone in an ‘authorized area’ without reasonable suspicion for articles ‘of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism’.

TERRORISM ACT 2000

Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 – Photographs

Section 58(1) Terrorism Act 2000 deals with the collection of information. It states that a person commits an offence if (a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or (b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.

Section 58(2) states that a “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

How can I defend myself against an accusation that a photograph falls within s.58?

Section 58(3) provides that it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

The House of Lords interpreted Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 in the recent case of R. v G. [2009] UKHL 13. The Court ruled that the offence is premised upon there being someone who is actually planning an act of terrorism. “Likely to be useful” is interpreted as “likely to provide practical assistance.”

Helpfully the House of Lords also said that it could not have been the intention of Parliament to criminalise the possession of items useful for everyday purposes simply because those items could also be useful to someone planning an act of terrorism.

So, if you are asked to stop taking pictures under s.58 of the Terrorism Act you could ask the officer which terrorist he thinks you are trying to assist and if there is no such person you could suggest that the officer should not try to stop you taking pictures and you could refer the officer to the other policies on this subject detailed below.

s.58A Terrorism Act – photographs of police officers etc.

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 creates the offence of “Eliciting, publishing or communicating” information about members of armed forces, intelligence services or police constables. A person commits this offence if they elicit, attempt to elicit, publish or communicate information about an individual who is or has been a member of these services, if it is “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.”

Again it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

The above House of Lords case also suggests that no offence can be committed unless there is someone, somewhere, planning a terrorist act who you are personally helping.

Does this prohibit me from taking photographs of police officers?

The Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have both indicated that s.58A of the Terrorism Act does not criminalise the taking of photographs of the police.
Should I be stopped from taking photographs in an “authorized area” under s.44 of the Terrorism Act?

No. Home Office Policy 012/2009 – ‘Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000’ states:

“Section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in an authorised area and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 44.”
Can an officer look through my images?

Digital images can be viewed as part of a Terrorism Act search to discover whether you have in your possession anything which may constitute evidence that you are a terrorist (but see below regarding Special Procedure Material).
In what circumstances can my images be taken away by the police?

Cameras, film and memory cards can be seized if the officer reasonably suspects that these may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

However, officers do not, during a search, have the power to delete images or destroy film and if they do you may be able to bring a claim against the police for any loss caused to you.

Once cameras or other devices are seized, to preserve evidence, officers should not normally attempt to examine them further. Seized cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found in and forwarded to appropriately trained forensic staff for forensic examination.

Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, states that items including pictures, memory sticks or cameras can be seized by a constable if there has been a lawful search and it is not reasonably practicable for it to be determined, at the time and place of the search i) Whether what the constable has found is something he is entitled to seize (i.e. whether it is Special Procedure Material); or (ii) the extent to which he has found something that he is entitled to seize. Items can be seized to enable those questions to be determined.

If items are seized then Section 52 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 states that notice must be given to the searched person specifying, amongst other things:

* what has been seized;
* the grounds on which the power has been exercised;
* the right to apply to court for return of the material; and
* the right to apply to be allowed to attend the initial examination of the material.

Section 53 goes on to say that items should be examined as soon as reasonably practicable (bearing in mind the desirability of having the person searched present if he chooses). If the police had no power to seize, then the items should be returned. There is also the potential for seizure on arrest.

What policies can help me in persuading an officer to allow me to carry on taking pictures/filming?”

1. Home Office policy – 012 / 2009

This came into force on 18 August 2009 and clarifies the scope of Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (set out above). It states:

* Section 43 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 43.
* A police officer can only stop and search a person they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under this power.

2. Home Office policy – ‘Photography and Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000’ (photos of police officers etc.)

This states: “An officer making an arrest under section 58A must reasonably suspect that the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.  An example might be gathering information about the person’s house, car, routes to work and other movements.”

It continues:

It is a statutory defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for eliciting, publishing or communicating the relevant information.

Important: Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse.

Similarly an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.

3. Metropolitan Police Service policy on s.58A Terrorism Act 2000.

This includes the following:

* It would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests because there would not normally be grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist.
* An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
* There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates’ Guidance – 14 December 2009
General Points

* Officers do not have the power to delete digital images, destroy film or to prevent photography in a public place under either Terrorism Act power.
* Officers are also reminded that under these powers they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails.
* Where it is clear that the person being searched under Sections 43 or 44 is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.
* If an officer’s rationale for effecting a stop is that the person is taking photographs as a means of hostile reconnaissance, then it should be borne in mind that this should be under the Section 43 power. Officers should not default to the Section 44 power in such instances simply because the person is within one of the designated areas.

So, you may wish to ask an officer who tries to view your images or stop you taking pictures whether he is doing so because he thinks you are involved in ‘hostile reconnaissance’. If the answer is ‘no’, then the policies suggest he should not target you simply because you are a photographer. If the answer is ‘yes’ then he should have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are in possession of articles likely to be useful to a terrorist and you could ask upon what basis he has this suspicion. The reply might be “because you are taking pictures”, in which case, you might refer him to the above policies which state that you should not be prevented from taking pictures simply because you are in an ‘authorised area’ under the Terrorism Act 2000.
As a journalist, are my photographs afforded any special protection?

Section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) states that journalistic material is subject to the rules of Special Procedure Material.

This section also applies to material acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid office where it is held subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence.

Generally, once your images are recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order. However, see above regarding s.51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

In terrorist cases, e.g. where police contact starts with a search under section 43 Terrorism Act 2000, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may issue a search warrant (without court order) if there exists a “great emergency” and “immediate action is necessary.” This only applies to terrorist cases, not investigations of other criminal offences.

In many cases therefore, the production or seizure of images will require a court order. This should only be granted in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to that investigation; and where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the material to be disclosed, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation, and the circumstances under which you had the material in your possession.

Do I have to give an officer my name and address details if I am not under arrest?

Section 50 Police Reform Act was enacted to deal with persons acting in an anti-social manner. It states that if a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.

Part 2 of Section 50 says that any person who:

(a) fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or
(b) gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine.

A constable in uniform may arrest an individual for failure to provide name and address details if there is reason to believe that person is acting in an anti-social manner.

It would be difficult for the police to justify the belief that the mere taking of photographs is “anti-social”, but this question has not yet been tested in the courts.
Is there any law that stops me from taking pictures of government buildings?

Section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 states that it is a criminal offence to take a photograph of a “prohibited place”, which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly “useful to an enemy”, for a purpose which is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state.

Prohibited places include:

* All HM Defence establishments;
* Places declared by Order of the Secretary of State to be prohibited places (i.e Nuclear facilities and property belonging to, or used for, the purposes of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority.

This section should not prohibit the taking of photographs of buildings such as the Houses of Parliament, i.e. those that are already within the public domain.

Are there any other guidelines or leaflets available that I can carry with me to show officers?

Yes. Guidelines for MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews were produced in 2006. A leaflet is available from the Metropolitan Police or through the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

Guidance can be found at: Metropolitan Police: Photography Advice
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
Media Guidelines (Nationally adopted in April 2007)

* Members of the media have a duty to report from the scene of many of the incidents we have to deal with. We should actively help them carry out their responsibilities provided they do not interfere with ours.
* Where it is necessary to put cordons in place, it is much better to provide the media with a good vantage point from which they can operate rather than to exclude them, otherwise they may try to get around the cordons and interfere with police operations. Providing an area for members of the media does not exclude them from operating from other areas to which the general public has access.
* Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record.
* Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.
* We cannot give or deny permission to members of the media to enter private premises whether the premises are directly involved in the police operation or not. This is a matter between the person who owns or is in control of the premises and the members of the media.

How can I tell if a police officer could be subject to a complaint?

The Police (conduct) Regulations 2008 provide standards of behaviour expected of all police officers:

Authority, Respect and Courtesy:

* Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
* Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.

Equality and Diversity:

* Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly.

Use of Force:

* Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Orders and Instructions:

* Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions.
* Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.

Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct:

* Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

What powers do the police have to seize pictures on private property?

Section 19 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

The powers of seizure under s.19 PACE are exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on the premises. These powers are as follows:

S19.(3) The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; and

(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

(6) No power of seizure conferred on a constable under any enactment (including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act) is to be taken to authorise the seizure of an item which the constable exercising the power has reasonable grounds for believing to be subject to legal privilege.
Can the police order me to move away from a demonstration?

Section 14 Public Order Act – Imposing conditions on public assemblies

S14.(1) If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that—

(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or

(b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,

He may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation.

This law is intended to assist in policing demonstrations and assemblies, and there is little evidence to suggest that it was designed, or should be used by police officers against photographers who are peacefully taking pictures of such an event.
If I refuse to move, can I be arrested?

Section 89 Police Act 1996 deals with assaulting or obstructing a police officer. Part 2 of the section states that any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

For the purposes of this section “obstruct” means prevent the officer from carrying out his duties or to make it more difficult for him to do so.

NB- you can only be guilty of an offence if the officer is acting lawfully to begin with.
Do PCSO’s (Police Community Support Officers) have similar powers to those of Police Officers in relation to stops and searches of photographers?

No. PCSOs have much more limited powers. PCSO’s have the power to:

* direct traffic and pedestrians;
* confiscate alcohol and tobacco from persons under 16;
* enter premises to save life and prevent damage to property;
* remove abandoned vehicles;
* issue fixed penalty notices;
* demand a name and address from a person under s.50 Police Reform Act;
* seize vehicles used to cause alarm;
* search property in matters related to terrorism (with a constable) and seize drugs.

They do not have a power of arrest, however they can require someone to remain with them until a constable arrives in specific circumstances.

Any final tips?

As a photographer or photojournalist dealing with the police, you should be assertive but polite.

You should ask questions such as upon what basis are you asking me to be searched/to stop filming etc.

You should make a detailed note immediately after an interaction as to what you said and what was said by the officer in reply before, during or after a search.

You should rely upon the policies cited above and carry them with you.

If necessary, remind officers of the police codes of conduct. Warn the officer that (s)he will be the subject of a formal police complaint in the event of an unlawful search or arrest. (This could result in a regulation 9 notice being issued against the officer and the officer being interviewed under criminal caution).

>>>

The information in this guide is of a general nature and should not be relied on in place of legal advice appropriate to your circumstance.

Shamik Dutta was a speaker at the Photographers and the Police Seminar held at the AoP on April 14th 2010. Shamik works for the law firm Fisher Meredith in London.

4 – 5 weeks later ……. I think my computer is fixed at last. [until the next time].

The story so far ……. Computer had been protected by Kaspersky Anti-virus 2009 software last year.  Then in mid April, I splashed out on renewal, I splashed out on ‘Kaspersky Internet Security 2010’.

It installed fine.  BUT then I thought I would ‘scan my discs’. It found 4 items, that it said should be deleted, and then rebooted. I did, but then on the 5th ocassion it wanted to delete a file and then reboot. It failed to do so saying msls51.dll was missing.

What a performance, it turned out to be a bit of a trojan thinggy, but not a very good one…. since even I understand that they want all to work, so they can steal your bits 🙁 rather than be a weapon to disable you!

Weeks later and after very much help from Kaspersky support, a man spent SIX HOURS yesterday doing stuff remotely on my machine. All seems to float now. This is the first day since this surgery. Have switched on and of a number of times now and all [most] seems ok. What I don’t know about computers would fill the Grand Canyon. Normal service will shortly be resumed.

Labour saving devices ….. Pah!!