Alan Lodge's Blog

Have added more links to my …

‘Collected’ Indymedia Articles page at: http://foto8.eu

Have prepared a new page on these issues at:

http://nottingham.indymedia.org/articles/2189

In spite of assorted agreements with the police, officers continue to be obstructive to photogaphy in the street.

Although the trend of photographers getting hassle go’s up and down over time, It has always been thus!

The object of this page is to strengthen your knowledge regarding issues surrounding photography, both in ‘actions’ and subjects in a public place. In situations whether your photographing an action / demonstration, or people and buildings in the High Street …. it has become quite problematic and increasingly so. I think 4 main issues have a bearing here.

Policeman and assorted officers don’t want to be photographed, it might show some wrong-doing.
People involved in direct action, a photograph might be evidence against an individual breaking the law.
The notion that some believe people have a right of privacy in a public place.
The threat of terrorism and a photographer might be conducting ‘hostile reconissence’.
So, I think to start with, and since we are dealing with those interested in the sort of subjects Indymedia visitors might be interested to know about ….. I should say the first consideration is:

IS IT LIKELY THAT A PICTURE I TAKE, WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO PROSECUTE ANYONE?

I struggle with this all the time and it is central in my mind when photographing activities. It might be argued that it is safer just to take pictures on your holiday and leave a camera at home otherwise. I don’t agree.

Those of us who are serious about this media have a more positive motive.

Firstly, we sometimes moan about the lack of coverage, issues that concern us don’t get in the main stream media, or, when they do are monstered and rubbished.

Many of us have been involved in the ‘alternative media’ in a variety of forms to try and fill this gap. It is a prime objective of the Indymedia Network Project. Should people not have photographed, filmed, recorded or written about events themselves in recent years, vast chunks of history would not have been told or known about. For future activities, I think it is important to show what has been possible in the past. Our coverage should be inspiring to others in the future. Not just the near future either, photographers both professional and casual contribute to our ‘social history’. I want my ‘tribes’ included in this knowledge.

Secondly, having said I don’t want to provide evidence to prosecute anyone ….. I do have ‘form’ for providing picture to defend people wrongly accused. In fact, this is where I started during my festival and traveller days. Authorities and policemen in particular are given training in the aspects of how to give authorititive evidence in court. Many times have I seen this ‘blown out of the water’ by a witness giving evidence and showing a series of photographs or video demonstrating the officer lying through his teeth. It’s not only photographs of course, you should make written notes of times, date, places. [who, what, were and when]. Voice recording equipment is much cheaper and available now, dictaphones, mobile phones and the like can be used covertly or obvertly.

Now, bearing all the above in mind, you have to be aware of the pressures there are now, when photographing your interests in a public place. As far as I know, there are only two offences that are committed where you can be properly arrested. It is an offence to take photographs or collect information, likely to be of use in terrorism ‘hostile reconissence’ and you are not permitted to take an indecent photograph of a child.

As devices to try and prevent you, the police have been know to threaten:

Harrasment, causing alarm and distress.
Obstruction [obstructing and officer in the execution of his duties].
Seizing equipment and media that might assist in the investigation of crime. [PACE 1984].
Stop and Searches under sections 44 and now 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Collecting info on police for terrorism purposes [Sect58a Terrorism Act 2000]
The Sect 58a is still one of the most dangerous, since it is in so many peoples mind, that it is an offence to photograph policemen. IT IS NOT. The Metropolitan Police, Photography advice [below] makes it quite clear that this is not true [unless you are a terrorist of course]. They have to have resonable suspicion that you are.

Now, on to some advice. It is simple. You can photograph largely what you like in a public place, with a couple of exceptions that I’ve described. BUT, it is complicated in understanding the speaded of guidelines and advices that are now published. The more serious you are about being confident in your photography, the more of this lot you’d want to read. For the casual snapper, the first few links should help.

Please visit: Photography Advice and Guidance

Friday 18th – Sat 19th February Nottingham City Centre

‘Light Night’ performance, projections, installations and events
At various place around town, St. Peters Gate, Market Square, Castle ,Hockley etc. there was a range of performance, street arts, lights & projections, installations and stuff going on.

Councillor David Trimble Said: “The event was a huge success and attracted thousands of people who created a great carnival atmosphere. It was pleasing to see families and visitors enjoying themselves as they discovered different attractions across the city that they perhaps never knew existed.”

It’s a shame though that things were to stop too early in the evening.  Think it would have been great to have been out to the pub or club, and see some of this going on much later.http://www.mynottingham.gov.uk/lightnight

My personal favorites of the night
The Dukes Box http://www.thedukesbox.com
The Sonic Manipulator http://www.sonicmanipulator.com
……
and … another couple of videos of these actshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaXLRtZcHHohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To1ahfr8VLI

4.30pm. Market Square, Nottingham

Nottingham students again protested against scrapping the Educational Maintenance Allowance. I understand that the government plan to do this in September this year.

Another rally was held in the square, before a short walk around the Square and nearby streets.

After Tuesdays and Saturdays demo, today, I noticed that police were wandering about next to branches of all the usual destinations: Top Shop, Boots, Vodafone and there was a massed turnout of security at entrances to the Victoria Centre.

This was organised to coincide with a Commons vote on EMA.  Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) were introduced by Labour to encourage young people from deprived backgrounds to stay in education and training after the age of 16.  However the government won by a majority of 59 votes.

Labour loses vote to stop scrapping of EMA grants
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12228466

+++++

The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is a means-tested allowance of between £10 and £30, paid to 16- to 19-year-olds who stay on in education.

Rolled out nationally in September 2004, EMA is intended to help with the cost of books, travel, equipment or anything useful to the continuation of learning. It’s paid straight into the pupil’s bank account, not their parents or their college, giving them independence and forcing them to take charge of a small weekly budget. The payments are under the condition that they attend classes regularly. If the pupil works hard or achieves good grades, there is the opportunity to earn bonuses.

EMA is available to 16-19 year olds who come from low income families and whose household’s net income is below £30,000 pa. There is an additional grant for those students from families household income is up to and below £20,000 pa. EMA currently exists all across the UK although the administering of it is devolved to the regional parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

+++

On Saturday January 15, 2011 …. they did it all again

2011 Nottingham Students another Protest Against Scrapping EMA
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/887

Earlier in the week [Tuesday 11th January] student had walked out of college and protested in the Market Square and Conservative HQ

Students Protest Against Scrapping EMA
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/875

Video: Nttm Students visit Conservative Party HQ – Demo
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/tumbles/877

Video: Nttm Students visit Conservative Party HQ – Detained
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/tumbles/878

Save EMA
http://saveema.co.uk

Nottingham Students Against Fees and Cuts!
http://nsafc.wordpress.com

Notts Save Our Services
Defending jobs, services, welfare & education against cuts in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire
http://nottssos.org.uk

Smashed Windows & Graffiti @ Conservative Offices
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/677

2010 Notts Save Our Services Demo 1 The March
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/694

2010 Anti Cuts, Corporate Tax & Student Fees Demo [Video]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/videos/832

18th January Nottingham Crown Court [Day 17]

From the first trial the previous 18 of the 20 defendant had already been sentenced on the 10th January.

The remaining 2 had to appear at Court 5, Nottingham Crown Court today.

The story so far ….. At the conclusion of the trial on the 14th December 2010, all 20 defendants were found guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass.

They were arrested in April 2009 during the biggest pre-emptive arrest in UK history. The 114 people were detained at Iona School, Sneinton, where they were involved in planning an operation to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station for a week. The facts were not disputed.  Giving evidence, this was clearly there intention and that they were equipped to do it.  The defence of necessity was employed in that they were acting to prevent a greater harm; death and serious injury to others as a direct consequence of climate changes bought about by the burning of fossil fuels, most notably coal.

His Honour Judge Teare had deferred sentencing until today [18 January 2011] for the remaining 2 defendants.

Miss Gerry for the prosecution said that these defendants did have a number of previous convictions for offences relating to social and environmental matters. She read out the previous for them that involved protests at Heathrow, Kingsnorth, Sizewell, Didcot, RAF Northwood and Downing Street.

She reminded the Judge she had asked for prosecution costs of £5,000 costs against each defendant. Further she applied for a deprivation order under:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 [sect 143]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/143

Judge Teare turns to thoughts of sentencing.  To start with, he said he was quite cross with Mr Edward Rees, the lead defence barrister [not present at this court], in that he had mislead the court to believe that a suspended sentence could not be given for a prison sentence of three months or less. He should have behaved better for a QC.  This is the maximum penalty for this offence.  It is in fact for sentences of less than six months that could be suspended!  He said if he had realised this, a couple of the earlier defendants would have had suspended sentences. He has looked further into this, and if minded, he could revisit sentencing for those within 28 days, but he is not going to.

With regard to these defendants, Judge Teare says that each have had many previous appearances and he says I am now considering suspended sentences. Ms Elliot in mitigation says that if that is so, these two fall below the level of others given lesser sentences at the last date.

Turning to references, Ms Elliot says that both have glowing references from the Director of Greenpeace, both being staff members there. It was not however, a ‘Greenpeace action’.  Both have been very active in raising public awareness on issues around climate change.

Ms Elliot reminds the Judge of his comments on sentencing the other defendants:

“I have read a great deal about all of you since the trial concluded. There is not one of you who cannot provide glowing references from peers or professionals. And, if I may select, some of the adjectives that recur throughout they are these: honest, sincere, conscientious, intelligent, committed, dedicated and caring. You are all decent men and women with a genuine concern for others, and in particular for the survival of planet Earth in something resembling its present form. I have no doubt that each of you acted with the highest possible motives. And that is an extremely important consideration”.

Sarah Elliot, compared the defendants behaviour and high principles unfavourably with police methods. She told the Judge that their honourable and decent motives perhaps might be contrasted with what we now know about the long-term deployment of undercover police officers, one of whom acted on the ‘extreme boundary of legality’, if not decency, if the reports of agitation and so on across Europe are to be believed. The deployment of that officer has been concealed from the defendants by the crown in these proceedings. Such evidence might have had an influence on the trial.

His Honour Judge Jonathan Teare, referring to the undercover police officer said that he is going to disappoint the media by making NO COMMENT on PC Mark Kennedy, other than to say that he played absolutely no part in the trial. He says I have no knowledge of him apart from the fact that he hired a vehicle as part of these events. All matters pertaining to his involvement are alleged and unproved at this stage. I guess a fair few of the journos present were hoping for a few more juicy titbits about him.

On sentencing, the Judge says he’s not going to reiterate all of his comments from the last trial, other than that both are both clearly motivated and come with the highest references. As with a couple of others, I was considering giving you both suspended sentences in the light  of your previous convictions, but as already said, Mr Rees had mislead me.  It is thus unfair to treat you differently now. He gives community service orders to do unpaid work within 12 months one for 90 hours and the other 80 hours. Although they were both employed, because of their low income, there was no order on costs.

Returning to the deprivation order on the kit defence barrister Ms Elliot tried to argue that quite expensive climbing gear, a truck load of sleeping bags etc … were a little outside of the normal articles involved in crime such as knives, guns, drugs, crowbar etc.  Judge said that he was minded to grant a deprivation order, since the articles were bought for this crime. Defence counters asking that rather than confiscation and destruction, perhaps defendant might be allowed to sign a disclaimer and the articles might be given to a charity?  Eventually, after several more exchanges, the judge asked both side to try to come to some agreement themselves on all the property included in both trials and those not charged, and to let him know, for ‘rubber-stamping’, by the 18th March.

She said the extensive list of personal items also including Kennedy’s BlackBerry phone, complete with a secret police tracking device. She say this was mentioned in the reports in the Daily Mail. The Judge remarked that: “That is a newspaper which does not cross my table.” Chuckle went round the courtroom 🙂

Defendants and their solicitor had all voiced concerns on how little the Judge had been told about PC Kennedy’s undercover work and his likely contribution to the evidence before the court.

One of the defendants, who is head of media for Greenpeace, said on the steps of Nottingham crown court that the only people who now faced jail over the Ratcliffe protest were police officers. He accused them of withholding a tape made by Kennedy which is now the subject of a disclosure application to the CPS.

He said: “Kennedy played no part in our trial because he did not come up in evidence. Those who knew that he was a police officer, and knew the significance of that explosive tape, did not tell us, and, now we know, significantly,  did not tell the judge.”

“Very serious allegations have been raised which throw into doubt the safety of our conviction, and there is possibly a miscarriage of justice. I don’t think any of us, when we were arrested, would have thought that a possible scenario at the end of this would be that the only people who face jail sentences are police officers for suppressing evidence.”

Speaking on the court steps after the trial:

Last 2x defendants from 1st Ratcliffe Trial Statements- Nottm Crown Court [Video]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/tumbles/898

Mike Schwarz Solicitor Statements on Trial & Kennedy – Nottm Crown Court [Video]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/tumbles/899

+++

Tash Report PDF on the Trial Progress: Ratcliffe Crown Court Case Nov 2010 – Jan 2011
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/system/file_upload/2011/01/08/72/ratcliffe_crown_court_case__nov_2010__no_names.pdf

Earlier Indymedia daily coverage of the progress of this trial
with the daily links:
Ratcliffe Trial Day 16 – Return for Sentencing
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/847

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

Students Protest Against Scrapping Educational Maintenance Allowance EMA.

Meeting in the Market Square Nottingham at 12.00pm on Saturday 15th January, School and College Student gathered to protest at the Scrapping of the Educational Maintenance Allowance.  “nd demo this week, last being on Tuesday 11th January.

Nottingham students again protested against scrapping the Educational Maintenance Allowance. I understand that the government plan to do this in September this year.

A rally was held in the square, before a short walk to Vodafone, with much shouting of “pay your Taxes etc”.

After Tuesdays demo, today, I noticed that police were wandering about next to branches of all the usual destinations: Top Shop, Boots, Vodafone …. Oh and Tory HQ

The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is a means-tested allowance of between £10 and £30, paid to 16- to 19-year-olds who stay on in education.

Rolled out nationally in September 2004, EMA is intended to help with the cost of books, travel, equipment or anything useful to the continuation of learning. It’s paid straight into the pupil’s bank account, not their parents or their college, giving them independence and forcing them to take charge of a small weekly budget. The payments are under the condition that they attend classes regularly. If the pupil works hard or achieves good grades, there is the opportunity to earn bonuses.

EMA is available to 16-19 year olds who come from low income families and whose household’s net income is below £30,000 pa. There is an additional grant for those students from families household income is up to and below £20,000 pa. EMA currently exists all across the UK although the administering of it is devolved to the regional parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

+++

Earlier in the week [Tuesday 11th January] student had walked out of college and protested in the Market Square and Conservative HQ

Students Protest Against Scrapping EMA
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/875

Video: Nttm Students visit Conservative Party HQ – Demo
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/tumbles/877

Video: Nttm Students visit Conservative Party HQ – Detained
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/tumbles/878

Save EMA
http://saveema.co.uk

Nottingham Students Against Fees and Cuts!
http://nsafc.wordpress.com

Notts Save Our Services
Defending jobs, services, welfare & education against cuts in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire
http://nottssos.org.uk

Smashed Windows & Graffiti @ Conservative Offices
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/677

2010 Notts Save Our Services Demo 1 The March
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/694

2010 Anti Cuts, Corporate Tax & Student Fees Demo [Video]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/videos/832

Meeting in the Market Square Nottingham at 3.00pm on Tuesday 11th January, School and College Student gathered to protest at the Scrapping of the Educational Maintenance Allowance.  Students had earlier walked out at 2.00pm

Nottingham Students Protested against scrapping the Educational Maintenance Allowance. I understand that the government plan to do this in September this year.

A rally was held in the square, before a tour round the block to take in the usual suspects like Vodafone and Boots, with much shouting of “pay your Taxes etc”.

Later, folks headed off to the Conservative HQ Offices at:

Conservative Party Office
1 King Edward Court,
Nottingham
NG1 1EW

For those that don’t know.

They weren’t expected and the gates to the compound there were open.  People banged on the door, rang the bell etc, to try and get someone to talk about the issue.  There was no answer 🙂  It was noted that there was a painting of Margret Thatcher, adorning the foyer causing many remarks!  Many folks at other office windows were smiling and seeming to enjoy the demo as a spectacle.

The situation was good humored until one young lad was detained  [for, I think graffiti, although i saw none]. Folks then returned there to demand his release.  Police were called and it is believed he was taken to Bridewell police Station, leaving via another entrance.

Demo then went back through town, visiting another Vodafone store, and having a bit of a sit-in.

+++++

The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is a means-tested allowance of between £10 and £30, paid to 16- to 19-year-olds who stay on in education.

Rolled out nationally in September 2004, EMA is intended to help with the cost of books, travel, equipment or anything useful to the continuation of learning. It’s paid straight into the pupil’s bank account, not their parents or their college, giving them independence and forcing them to take charge of a small weekly budget. The payments are under the condition that they attend classes regularly. If the pupil works hard or achieves good grades, there is the opportunity to earn bonuses.

EMA is available to 16-19 year olds who come from low income families and whose household’s net income is below £30,000 pa. There is an additional grant for those students from families household income is up to and below £20,000 pa. EMA currently exists all across the UK although the administering of it is devolved to the regional parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Save EMA
http://saveema.co.uk

Nottingham Students Against Fees and Cuts!
http://nsafc.wordpress.com

Notts Save Our Services
Defending jobs, services, welfare & education against cuts in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire
http://nottssos.org.uk

Smashed Windows & Graffiti @ Conservative Offices
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/677

+++

descent report on ITV Central
http://www.itv.com/central-east/student-protests98684

Over the last few weeks, 20 protestors had been appearing in Nottingham crown Court, accused of conspiring to shut down the Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station. They were found guilty and were sentenced on the 5th January.

Today was to have been the beginning of a trial of a further 6 people arrested during the police Operation Aeroscope in which 114 people had been arrested by Nottinghamshire Police to prevent the action going ahead.

Integral to this case is the revelations of the work of the undercover Metropolitan Police Officer Mark Kennedy.

Mark ‘Stone/Kennedy’ exposed as undercover police officer? – Indymedia UK 21 October 2010
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466477.html

Mike Schwarz,a solicitor at the Bindmans law firm who represented the activists,  said last night:
“I have no doubt that our attempts to get disclosure about Kennedy’s role has led to the collapse of the trial. It is no coincidence that just 48 hours after we told the CPS our clients could not receive a fair trial unless they disclosed material about Kennedy, they halted the prosecution. Given that Kennedy was, until recently, willing to assist the defence, one has to ask if the police were facing up to the possibility their undercover agent had turned native.”

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer was spotted in Nottingham Crown Court this morning. A few of us were wondering if that his presence had anything to do with the trial collapse?  A couple of journalist asked court staff if this was so.  But, no!!  Apparently he was on a routine visit to the court. We looked at each other and said: “yea right” at the same time 🙂

Sitting in Court 3 the defendant initially seated in the dock [glass tank!] were invited to seating within the court. Before His Honour Judge Milmo QC, Miss Felicity Gerry for the prosecution said that on last Wednesday [5th January], the Crown Prosecution Service undertook a review of the case and that as a result, the crown had decided to offer no evidence.  The judge therefore declares all six defendants not guilty. The defendant were represented by six individual barristers each of which then applied to the court for an assortment of legal and travel costs all being agreed by the judge.

He then rose.

The whole gig done and dusted in under ten minutes!

Of course the defendants had had this case hanging over their lives since Easter 2009. Obviously being in possession of more of the facts than they had let on. It would of course have been nice if the prosecution might have alleviated their distress by pulling the plug earlier. But no!

Outside, speaking on the court steps, solicitor Mick Schwartz said that the reason for the collapse of the trial was that:
“Previously unavailable material that significantly undermines the prosecution’s case came to light on Wednesday 5 January’. The discovery of this material came at the time when the prosecution were informed that we planned to pursue disclosure of the evidence relating to PC Kennedy with the judge. Unsurprisingly, they have declined to confirm whether the new material relates to PC Kennedy. In my opinion the two are obviously connected. The timing speaks for itself. These events also beg wider, serious questions. Would this evidence have been uncovered had the defence not become aware of it through other avenues?”

The primary difference in the defence operated in these two trials was that the first 20 said in court, that they were going to carry out the action that they were accused of, but claimed that it was ‘necessary’. A lawful excuse for action.  This latest trial of the six, would have said that yes, they were there, but had not decided whether to have taken part in any action, or not. PC Kennedy being present there, might have been able to help the court with that!!

It seems obvious to me that with the scale of the climate emergency in front of us, these [and similar] cases are only just the beginning.  As time progresses [runs out], many other concerned citizens will be taking direct actions on these issues.  The law will of course be 47 steps behind, uncertain if action is necessary or not, or, if democracy and political process can save us.  Having heard all the evidence from the last trial ….. I think not. Personally, I hope one day, the law might progress that we can eventually take action against companies / government for the new offence of ecocide, rather than defending individual peoples actions to be ‘necessary’.

Why we need a law on ecocide – Polly Higgins barrister, international environmental lawyer Guardian 5 January 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2011/jan/05/ecocide-law-ratcliffe

This Is Ecocide | Making the destruction of our planet a crime
http://www.thisisecocide.com

I wish everyone with concerns about our future, the very best in any action they can take to help us protect it.  For all future generations and species on the planet. My thanks.

+++

Mike Schwarz’s of Bindmans Solicitors statement on undercover policeman Mark Kennedy and the Ratcliffe trial

On Easter Monday 2009 over 400 police officers were involved in a raid  at Iona school in Nottingham, which led to 114 arrests. I represented 113 of those arrested. The 114th we now know was PC Kennedy, an undercover police officer. Six of my clients were due to face a long trial starting today. However, the prosecution told the defence on Friday 7th January 2011, just before the trial was due to begin, and almost 20 months after the investigation began, that ‘Previously unavailable material that significantly undermines the prosecution’s case came to light on Wednesday 5 January’. The discovery of this material came at the time when the prosecution were informed that we planned to pursue disclosure of the evidence relating to PC Kennedy with the judge. Unsurprisingly, they have declined to confirm whether the new material relates to PC Kennedy. In my opinion the two are obviously connected. The timing speaks for itself. These events also beg wider, serious questions. Would this evidence have been uncovered had the defence not become aware of it through other avenues? And is it appropriate that access to, and decisions about, disclosure of key evidence should exclusively be in the hands of a prosecution whose primary function is to secure convictions? Let me be clear about this. My clients were not guilty. They did not agree to join in any plan to occupy the power station. The evidence of PC Kennedy presumably confirmed this. Yet that evidence, had it been kept secret, could have led to a miscarriage of justice. Serious questions must be asked relating to the policing of protest, from the use of undercover officers, to the use of expensive and legally questionable mass pre-emptive arrest of protesters, to extremely restrictive pre-charge bail condition, to the seemingly arbitrary nature by which the 114 initially arrested were reduced to the final 26 who were eventually charged. The police need to answer some serious questions about their conduct relating to protesters generally.

Undercover officer spied on green activists – Rob Evans and Paul Lewis Guardian 9 January 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/09/undercover-office-green-activists

Mark Kennedy: A journey from undercover cop to ‘bona fide’ activist – Rob Evans and Paul Lewis Guardian 10 January 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/10/mark-kennedy-undercover-cop-activist

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

Indymedia daily coverage of the progress of this trial:

Ratcliffe Trial: Nottingham Crown Court,  November 2010 > January 2011

2009 Nottingham 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

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins [Feature]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/701

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe conspiracy to trespass trial opens today
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/693

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 2 – Prosecution’s Opening
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/702

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 3 – Prosecution case continues
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/710

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial: Prosecution Opens [Feature 2]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/714

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 4 – Prosecution case concludes
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/716

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 5 – Defence case opens
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/735

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 6 – The Defence Continues
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/744

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 7  ‘Snowed off’

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 8 – Defence Calls MP’s
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/765

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 9 – Defence Calls More Experts
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/786

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 10 – Defence Calls more Defendants
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/788

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 11 – Defence Concludes its Case
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/789

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 12 – Concluding Speeches
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/796

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 13 – Final bits & Jury Retires
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/799

2010 Nottingham Activist Speech On The Ratcliffe Trials
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/videos/798

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 14 – Jury Still Retired
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/809

2010 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 15 – Jury says Guilty
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/811

2011 Nottingham Ratcliffe Trial Day 16 – Return for Sentencing
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/847

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

We are twenty of the 114 who were part of the biggest pre-emptive arrest in British history as part of the increasing legal drive which priorities the protection of polluting business, and not people. As the UN Climate talks in Cancun produced embarrassingly inadequate legal responses, it’s time for people to stand up and take action. We planned not only to stop carbon emissions from Ratcliffe but to be part of a much wider movement for global social justice.

We know the road to a sustainable future will not be easy. Today its hard to ignore the impacts of runaway climate change. Post sentencing we still feel our actions are a reasonable response to the irrational destructive situation we are in. Its a story which has been repeated time and again but in 2011 the show must go on. We will have to see huge shifts in the legal system to make the British judicial system set a global example – by redirecting their attention to the real criminals, the profit hungry fossil fuel industries. Dealing with climate change means looking at its root causes and we need to question why the profits of corporations such as e.on are being prioritised over people on the front line of our changing climate and the protection of our children’s futures.

This scheme requires long term commitment and increasingly staunch political will – through creative direct action and other methods people can change the story of humans future. This is not an exercise in abstract science lessons – it requires us to stare hard into our communities and start joining up the dots. It’s the same energy companies that cling to coal who force pensioners into deadly fuel poverty. It’s the same government who fails to invest in green jobs that cut the UK flood defence budget. There are many avenues for making the links and connections and we are ever more determined to do all we can to stop emissions. As erratic weather patterns create more disasters, as people continue to choke on fumes and see their houses engulfed in floods – taking action on climate change is no longer an option – its a necessity. We want to reiterate our support for everyone everywhere fighting for climate justice.

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

The Judge described Ratcliffe power station activists as “honest, sincere, conscientious, intelligent, committed, dedicated, caring”. That they acted with “highest possible motives”.

The story so far ….. At the conclusion of the trial on the 14th December 2010, all 20 defendants were found guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass.

They were arrested in April 2009 during the biggest pre-emptive arrest in UK history. The 114 people were detained at Iona School, Sneinton, where they were involved in planning an operation to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station for a week. The facts were not disputed.  Giving evidence, this was clearly there intention and that they were equipped to do it.  The defence of necessity was employed in that they were acting to prevent a greater harm; death and serious injury to others as a direct consequence of climate changes bought about by the burning of fossil fuels, most notably coal.

Since being found guilty, His Honour Judge Teare had deferred sentencing until today awaiting reports. Two defendants have been further deferred until the 18 January 2011.

It is reported that this trial and police costs add up to £700,000.

Miss Gerry for the prosecution said that a number of defendants did have previous convictions for offences relating to social and environmental matters. None relating to violent or acquisitive crime. She asked the Judge to award £5,000 costs against each defendant.  When asked, the prosecution said that the actual prosecution costs against each defendant were £20,000.
[20x = £400,000 stone me!].

In mitigation, Mr Ed Rees for the defences seeks to make some general points pertaining to all the defendants:

•    If the action had in fact been carried out, it would have been peaceful and safe in character.
•    There is no suggestion of violence or disorder on any of the defendant part.
•    There would have been unlikely to have been any damage.
•    The planned event never took place.
•    The motivation of those involved being of a caring and concerned character.  He sites a Court of Appeal authority for this to be taken into account. Jones & Others R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 2942 (20 September 2006)

Mr Rees went on that all the defendants practice what they preach.  All had engaged in the democratic and political process and not just in direct action and that this should further mitigate any sentencing. All the defendants have so many character and glowing personal testimonials by professions and peers and had many social concerns.

As to costs, Mr Rees says that the trial length was greatly reduced by defendants admissions.  Hence only requiring one prosecution witness. He thus invites the court to take account of what is reasonable and just.

Some defendants were in receipt of a variety of benefits and disability / incapacity benefits and thus the prosecution asking for £5,000 would thus be unreasonable and unjust. Further, ome prosecution work and costs would be common to the next trial to be heard and thus this should also be taken into account.

All three barristers representing the defence then gave individual mitigations for each of their clients.

Returning after lunch the Judge Jonathan Teare makes a brief summary of the facts of the case. He agrees he is thwarted in his wish to make the defendants pay a larger proportion of the costs of the case because of their limited means. Further, with respect to those with previous convictions, he had been minded to give suspended prison sentences.  However, after a little discussion, it turns out that as the maximum penalty of three months imprisonment, a £2,500 fine, or both. That this short sentence cannot be suspended.

Thus, dealing with sentencing, five were given community orders [unpaid work] ranging from 18 to 90 hours to be carried out within 12 months.

The remaining thirteen all received conditional discharges ranging from 18 months to 2 years. Most had no order for cost awarded against them.  However, two of the defendants had to pay £1000 and £500.

The Judge added as he sentenced them: I have read a great deal about all of you since the trial concluded. There is not one of you who cannot provide glowing references from peers or professionals. And, if I may select, some of the adjectives that recur throughout they are these: honest, sincere, conscientious, intelligent, committed, dedicated and caring. You are all decent men and women with a genuine concern for others, and in particular for the survival of planet Earth in something resembling its present form. I have no doubt that each of you acted with the highest possible motives. And that is an extremely important consideration.

Judge Teare went on and said the protest had been well-considered and well-prepared. You had come from every corner of the country. Transport, food, clothing, climbing and safety equipment had been organised, costing several thousand pounds. Mobile phones, walkie-talkies, gas detectors, hard helmets, sleeping bags and sanitary facilities had all been provided. You had been organised into teams and briefed on your actions.

But while accepting the protest had been intended as a legitimate action by people who genuinely believed in their cause, the Judge said that their motives could not absolve them from punishment.

In concluding, the Judge said that never before had he dealt with so many defendant who were polite, committed and punctual during proceedings.

Two defendants have had sentencing deferred until the 18 January 2011.

So, there you have it!

Over three and a half weeks, all present in the court were informed of the facts by leading experts in the field. I received a three and half week seminar on the subject.  Although I knew a thing or two about the issues before my involvement in the trial, I came away knowing far more. Further, my own sense of alarm has been significantly increased. Something must be done!

The problem is that the jury weren’t so convinced as I was and didn’t accept the defence. They didn’t accept the idea of the democratic deficit. They still clearly believed that democratic means are sufficient to bring about the required changes and that the actions of these defendants were thus un-necessary.

There was never any dispute about the scientific facts and opinions presented during the trial. The prosecution didn’t take on any of the experts in their evidence. They were thus all agreed. Action is required within a very few years to avert our arrival at the ‘tipping points’ much referred to.  Points beyond which almost anything industries and governments do will no longer have any effect, since the materials causing changes have such a lag before their effects come into being. I can only guess that the jury was as alarmed as I was about some of this evidence, but they still didn’t accept the need for urgent ‘direct actions’ by individuals on these matters. What I would call social responsibly in fact.

The jury are of course, representatives of the public. To make a sufficient difference to these issues, people must be informed and convinced of the need for action in large numbers, and shortly. The jury at the earlier Kingsnorth case were so convinced and acquitted those defendants.

Now, we can all cry about it.  It should have been otherwise in this case too. How can I listen to the same evidence as they did and come to completely the opposite conclusions?

Those of us with concerns about all of this should make a better effort at ‘sharpening our pencils’ and trying to take millions more people with us in the need for more significant changes than we currently see. Direct action has to be an increasing component of this greater picture.

One of the defendants in this trial, Bradley Day, has contributed this article to the Guardian and hope it will help others to see ways ahead. There is so much to do.

The climate movement is in desperate need of renewal – Bradley Day Guardian 5 January 2011
If a jury that received extensive education on climate change could not vindicate the Ratcliffe activists, then who will?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2011/jan/05/climate-movement-renewal-ratcliffe

Please also check out an article by Mike Schwarz. He is a partner in the Bindmans law firm and was instructing solicitor in this case.

Why did Ratcliffe defence fail where Kingsnorth Six succeeded? – Mike Schwarz Guardian 16 December 2010
Two separate trials of environmental activists that both targeted coal-fired power stations produced different results. Lawyer Mike Schwarz examines the reasons why.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/dec/16/ratcliffe-trial

Another trial of 6 other people arrested during the police operations in April 2009. will be starting on Monday 10th January, 10am at Nottingham Crown Court. As ever, I wish them the very best.

Will the last one alive on the planet, kindly turn the lights out!

Metropolitan Police Special Branch (MPSB) to be amalgamated with the Anti-Terrorism Branch to form new Counter-Terrorist Branch
Statewatch News Online
http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=26721

Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)
http://www.soca.gov.uk

NETCU | National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit
http://www.netcu.org.uk

National Intelligence Machinery
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/national-intelligence-machinery

Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC)
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/intelligence-and-security-committee-isc-annual-reports

Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure
http://www.cpni.gov.uk

National Counter Terrorism Security Office
http://www.nactso.gov.uk

Security Service
http://www.mi5.gov.uk

National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU)
http://www.acpo.police.uk/NCDE/NPOIU.aspx

National Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism
http://www.acpo.police.uk/ncde

National Crime Squad [now merged with Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)]

and how many others, no one knows anything about.  Mark Stone / Kennedy could have belonged to any other that or, another one completely. But a large about of tax-payers money was spent in dealing with peaceful people.  No guns, bomb or chemical weapons in sight.  This being the case, I guess a larger budget will increasingly be required.

Sunday Times: Tim Rayment & Jonathan Leake 19th Dec 2010

A police officer spent seven years undercover living as a hippie and environmental activist to infiltrate peaceful protest groups

He drank with them, he climbed with them, he even seemed to love them and was loved in return. But Mark “Flash” Stone was living a double life as perhaps the most deeply embedded undercover police officer in Britain.
Questions are being asked this weekend as to what the police officer achieved in seven years, living at the taxpayers’ expense as a hippie and environmental activist. He infiltrated protest groups that were mainly peaceful in nature, moved in with them and travelled to Iceland and all over Europe.
His double existence ended when friends discovered documents showing his true identity, leaving a trail of emotional wreckage and a sense of bewilderment that the authorities should invest so much time for a seemingly modest reward.
Stone — real name Mark Kennedy — was among 114 people arrested last year on the eve of a planned invasion of a power station. The aim was to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire for a week, preventing the release of 150,000 tons of carbon dioxide from one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in Europe.
He drove the car on the initial reconnaissance and even hired a 7½-ton truck for the main event. But charges against him were dropped, leaving 20 others to be convicted last week of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass.
With his long hair, tattoos and body piercings, nobody suspected that their comrade in saving the planet was a detective. But Stone is thought to be a member of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit known as “the Hairies” because officers can wear their hair as they please.
According to one former member, only married officers are accepted into the unit, as they are less likely to “go native” if they have families to return to.
Called “Flash” because he had more money than other activists, Stone became a familiar face in Nottingham, hanging about at the Sumac centre, a vegan cafe and social club for people concerned with human and animal rights, the environment and pacifism. He lived with activists in the city.
His former friends say he was vehemently anti-police, a pose slightly at odds with a community more inclined to organise workshops on what they perceive as “bad policing” than to fight about it.
For the takeover of the power station, the protesters drew up health-and-safety plans and a rule that there would be no violence. They were to stop the conveyor carrying coal into the boilers, climb the 653ft chimney and unfurl protest banners.
The workers would be given leaflets reassuring them that jobs could be created by greener energy, while costlier but cleaner gas-fired stations would come on line to supply the National Grid, keeping the nation’s lights on.
Eon, the owner of the station, knew about the action five days beforehand and could have sought an injunction. Instead, the protesters were allowed to assemble and were then arrested.
Stone was unmasked as a suspected police officer 18 months later, just before the trial. Confronted by six friends with paperwork showing his real name, he admitted being in the Metropolitan police. The six published a short account of his confession in the green media, to general disbelief.
“Look at the bloke,” said one activist. “What did they do, send him from Hendon [police training centre] to spend five years smoking rollies and living in a tent? It boggles the mind that he’s spent so long doing basically f***-all, expending so much effort in terms of debate, slow, dull legwork and campaigning — and still be thinking, ‘Aha, fooling these oh-so-dangerous activists brilliantly’.”
Last week two police forces confirmed Stone’s status to The Sunday Times. “The individual is a Met officer,” said Nottinghamshire police. “He’s an undercover officer,” said the Metropolitan police. “We can’t say more.”
Scotland Yard refused requests for information about the SDS, a unit of the Met with a remit to prevent disorder. It was set up in 1968 after violence at anti-Vietnam war protests.
An insight into its methods came this year, when an SDS officer from the 1990s described his work. For four years the officer, Peter Daley, spent one day a week with his wife and family and six as a hate-filled Trotskyist on the wrong side of a riot shield. He was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and won an out-of-court settlement.
Stone has disappeared from Nottingham, leaving friends in shock. One said: “Whatever else Mark is, I do believe he had genuine feelings for those he had meaningful relationships with in the last seven years.”
The friend added: “I don’t believe he could be with such beautiful, wonderful people and not feel love.”
The protesters will be sentenced next month.

the Ratcliffe trial, should have concluded today. However, the sentencing of the 20 defendants has been deferred to early January.  Yet more hanging about

As the UN climate talks finish in Cancun, and fail once again to come up with any legally binding framework to reduce emissions, the British legal system is still upholding business as usual. This can’t continue. Burning coal has no future.

We are twenty of the 114 who were targets of the biggest pre-emptive arrest in UK history, as part of the increasing drive to stifle real action on climate change. We planned not only to stop carbon emissions from Ratcliffe but to be part of a much wider movement for global social justice. Dealing with climate change means looking at its root causes and we need to question why the profits of corporations such as e.on are being prioritised over people on the front line of our changing climate and the protection of our children’s futures.

In the 3 weeks we’ve been on trial over 17,000 people have died from the effects of climate change, species have continued to disappear and a few energy CEOs have continued to line their pockets. It’s the poorest and most vulnerable communities, those least responsible for this crisis, who are being hit the hardest.

Taking action on climate change is not an act of moral righteousness, but of self-defence. History is full of ordinary people who have acted to protect their fundamental rights and we need a strong movement of people doing just that. We want to reiterate our support for everyone fighting for climate justice.

We want to thank everyone for the amazing amount of solidarity we have received during this process from within Nottingham and beyond. It has been absolutely inspiring.  We are keen to publish more information, but obviously need to wait until sentencing on Friday to do this.

Our supporters have been doing an amazing job in making a blog about us and you can check out our website.

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

Twenty climate activists who planned to shut down one of Britain’s most polluting power stations for a week were found guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass today.

The activists were among 114 people arrested in a dawn raid on Easter Monday last year in a widely criticised policing operation that saw officers smashing their way into a school in Nottingham. It was the biggest pre-emptive arrest in British history. Twenty of those arrested faced a crown court trial which opened last month and ended today. The activists openly accepted they wanted to force plant owners Eon to safely shut down the power station for a week in an effort to stop 150,000 tonnes of CO2 entering the atmosphere – but they said they weren’t guilty of a crime because they were acting out necessity due to the lack of an adequate response to climate change by corporations and politicians. This comes as the 16th UN Climate Change talks end in Cancun, where once again governments have failed to build a legally binding strategy to cut emissions.

Speaking after the verdict one of the defendants, Clare Whitney, said:

“During this trial we have heard from people on the front line of our changing climate, and from a company that is still burning the most dirty form of fossil fuel for their economic benefit. These worlds are not compatible. Taking action is not an issue of moral righteousness but an act of self-defence. If we’re to stand a chance of avoiding irreversible climate change we’ve got to realise that to bring about a better world we’ll need to do it ourselves.”

Defendant Chris Kitchen said

“We are in solidarity with all those around the world fighting for climate and social justice. Together we need to stop the root causes of climate change, we need to stop profit being put before people. It’s big business and politicians are that are the real criminals and we will not stand by as we are robbed of our future.”

Dan Glass, another defendant in the case, said:

“This ruling won’t stop emissions. But the huge support we have received from the people of Nottingham and internationally, does demonstrate that public opinion is increasingly turning against the liberties that governments are taking with our future.”

The court had earlier heard that a team of protesters would have pressed the emergency stop buttons on the coal conveyors which feed the boilers, while another team would have climbed the inside of the chimney before abseiling into the flues to prevent the plant re-opening for a week, saving 150,000 tonnes of CO2. Six defendants took to the witness stand. One, Ben Stewart, told the jury: “we did this to save human lives. I can’t tell you if the lives we would have saved would have been my relatives or your relatives, but they would have been somebody’s relatives.” All defendants spoke of huge amount of community engagement they have carried out to raise the issue of action on climate change, whilst still seeing emissions continuing to rise unabated.

The defendants also called a number of internationally renowned expert witnesses. They included Professor James Hansen, acclaimed as the world’s leading climate scientist. He told the jury: “It doesn’t surprise me that young people are angry when they know that politicians are lying to them.” When challenged by the judge as to the measurable effects of the defendants’ proposed action, Hansen noted that the action could have prevented one, if not more, species from becoming extinct. Dr Ian Roberts, Professor of Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Medicine detailed to the court the real and imminent threat to health posed by climate change, saying we risk a ‘generational genocide’ as we ‘sleep walk into a nightmare’. Dr Roberts told the court that at least 150,000 people a year were dying as a result of man-made climate change.

Former local MP Alan Simpson also appeared as a witness for the defence. In his written testimony he said: ‘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.’ Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP told the court politicians had failed in their duty to protect the public from climate change.

Ends

For more, contact 07834324840

Notes:

1. The conspiracy to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in April 2009 is different from the Great Climate Swoop of October 2009 (http://climatecamp.org.uk/actions/climate-swoop-2009)

All 20 defendants are found guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass at Ratcliffe-on_Soar Power Station in April 2009.

They are required to come back to court at 12noon on Friday for sentencing.

All in Nottingham Crown Court again at 10am Tuesday.  After the His Honour Judge Teare made his directions, the jury were first sent out on Friday.  They came back to court a couple of times to ask questions. After the weekend, they came back yesterday [Monday] to continue their deliberations.  Again a couple more questions, but it was becoming clear that they were quite divided. At 3.40pm yesterday, they were looking a bit tired and sent a note to the Judge, asking if they could go home for the day. They had been considering their verdict for 10 hours up to then. The Judge then told them that when they came back today … he would accept a majority verdict.

Today [Tuesday], they retired again at 10.13am.  At 11.10am they returned after a total of 11.07hours.

The clerk read out the indictment:

20x names. are charged as follows, That they:

Conspired to Commit Aggravated Trespass, Contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Verdict – GUILTY. [for all the defendants]

Strangely, the verdict was unanimous, when you consider that the judge had said he would accept a majority after their earlier difficulty in reaching a decision.

The Judge said that he was not going to hand down prison sentences now.  However, after hearing of some that had previous convictions he said he may be considering suspended sentences for those. Others were of previous ‘good character’ might be receiving community punishment orders, to do unpaid work. He went on, that this trial had cost the country a vast amount of money.  As their actions have been found to have been unnecessary, then I don’t see why they can’t contribute.

All are required to return to court at 12noon on Friday 17th December.

Personally. I don’t think that their case could have been better expressed.  Having sat through the whole case, I was privileged in hearing the expert evidence that was of some substance and alarming. After all that exposure to the facts, then if the jury can’t see that urgency of a need for action, then I am of course pessimistic in how on earth we are going to convince the wider public of the need for action.

Perhaps we are all doomed 🙁

I have added my best wishes to all the defendants throughout the progress of this case. As it turns out … fuck all use my good wishes were. I am sad for the defendants in loosing and being found guilty, but I am also sad for my own health and everybody else’s. If people are deterred from taking more direct action on these issues, nothing else substantial is going on.  As the recent events at the Cancún climate summit in Mexico have clearly demonstrated, if we leave it up to companies and politicians to act, then we will be waiting a very long time. Certainly past the tipping points we heard so much about. Beyond which we might not be able to do very much about our demise.

Will the last one alive on the planet, kindly turn the lights out!

Statement from the Defendants
http://ratcliffeontrial.org/2010/12/statement-from-the-defendants

Press Release
http://ratcliffeontrial.org/2010/12/press-release-activists-found-guilty-in-ratcliffe-coal-climate-trial

Ratcliffe on Trial Blog
http://ratcliffeontrial.org

10.00am and all back in court yet again. Sitting in Nottingham Crown Court, His Honour Judge Teare reminded the jury that although the press was full over the weekend, of the progress [or lack of it], of the talks taking place in Cancún climate summit in Mexico, they were to discount all of it.  He says the verdict they reach is to be on the evidence introduced here, during this trial.

Today was much of a re-run of friday.  The jury retired at 10.22am. Then, at 12.33 pm the court reconvened to answer a further jury question concerning the burden of proof. As with all trials, the judge reiterated that it is the duty of the prosecution to make the jury sure that the defendants were unreasonable in their actions, rather than the duty of the defence to make the jury sure that they were reasonable.

In common with the defendants, a few of us hopped from one foot to the other, just hoping. Then, at 3.46pm this afternoon the jury came back into the court room, looking tired, and passed another note to the judge asking to go home for the day.

Before they left, the judge said that he would now accept a majority verdict – this means that he will accept a verdict that 10 or more jurors are agreed on.

Adding friday and today, the jury will have now had some 10 hours of deliberations.

The case continues more  …… onwards.

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

** Waiting for the jury to decide the matter means more time, wondering and waiting. As before, I would like to offer my very best wishes to all involved in this enterprise and wish all the very best of luck in receiving the just outcome you deserve.  Tash xx

His Honour Judge Teare concludes his summing up and directions. He reminds the jury that from the evidence presented, you might conclude that climate change is happening, it is human driven and the associated effects of it are as has been described. The burning of fossil fuels is mainly responsible and that coal is the biggest contributor.  Further Ratcliffe is the 2nd largest producer of such emission in the UK.

The Judge suggests to the jury that to get any action on the issue the choice is between democratic methods, the difficulties of which have been presented Vs. the necessity of action.

So was it to save someone’s life on the planet or not? Please return a verdict on which you are all agreed. A majority verdict is not acceptable in this case.

At 10.20am, the jury retires to consider their verdict.

Having spent the day deliberating, the court was reconvened twice during the day in order to answer jury questions. The first concerned the details of evidence given by former Nottingham MP Alan Simpson about EU directives. The second concerned defining exactly which lives the defendants needed to be protecting in order to justify their actions being necessary in law. The judge explained that the lives did not need to be local to the power station or Nottingham, but could be anywhere in the world. The trial has heard factual evidence from people suffering from the worst excesses of climate change, in locations ranging from Hull to Bangladesh.

The jury will return to court at 10am on Monday

The case continues … progresses … and continues a bit more…

Miss Felicity Gerry for the prosecution begins her speech to the jury. She says the actions of these defendants was not necessary but unreasonable and hence criminal in character. Throughout much of the trial, the evidence and facts have been agreed by both sides.

On the 13 April 2009, police prevented a large scale aggravated trespass that was to have taken place at Ratcliffe Power Station.  It was not necessary to carry out this action since in a free and democratic society, many other methods are available. Direct action was not a necessity but a choice, a main object of which was to highlight issues and actions to the media. You’ve heard that the action cost £15,000.  I ask you to image what that money could have bought in public engagement. An iPhone application, celebrity endorsements, an air ticket to Cancún, Mexico.

She agrees that the science presented was all correct. There is little dispute that the world is getting warmer and that the causes are man-made.  It’s not for the jury to decide if these changes are in fact man-made or a produce of the natural cycles of the earth. The public need to be reasonably informed, but these defendants chose not to take this course.

Miss Gerry says that this action was not about saving carbon emissions but about publicity and hence was not reasonable or necessary.  There was no necessity for this action. She sits down.

For the defence, Mr Edward Rees QC begins his speech to the jury.  He says, the principle issues in this case, it’s about if the defendants conduct was unlawful. Further, whether in the absence of any violence on their part, their actions were criminal. We say that their intended conduct was necessary in all the circumstances. It is for the prosecution to prove that their conduct was not necessary to gain their conviction. This is the burden of proof and is so in all trials. Our law does make an allowance for necessity in action.

Mr Rees mentions the Suffragette movement.  Recounting a conversation with prosecution counsel earlier, she had said that those defendants were a ‘load of wimps’ next to the Suffragette example. They would have thrown themselves at the chimneys with skirts billowing!!  He invites the jury to remember that this was happening not so long ago. It seems ridiculous to us now that women didn’t have the vote.  Looking back, future generations would look kindly on these people and their actions.

A large and expensive police operation that must have been planned much earlier and must have been intelligence lead in character.  Therefore, with this advance notice, why didn’t the police or the company obtain an injunction to prevent any action? You’ve heard about the police breaking down doors of the school and refusing people the facility to repair and tidy the premises. A complete inversion on what you might have expected.

Returning to the core word ‘reasonableness’.  Action need to be proportionate to the threat perceived.  This of course will vary to the circumstances.  The jury will want to know, what is the test of this?  If attacked, defensive action would be self-defence and thus a person would be not guilty.  Likewise, if a person thought he was going to be attacked and that thought was in the circumstances, reasonable.  Again, in those circumstances, he would be not guilty.

Mr Rees says that the prosecution say that the action was not necessary since the defendants knew emissions wouldn’t have been saved.  This hare was set running by Mr Smith, the Ratcliffe Station Manager in his evidence.  They produce no evidence about this. The fact was that coal stations were already running.  So it is in fact true that the more efficient [if expensive] gas-fired might be the ones to have been started up to compensate.  Thus, the defendants did reasonably believe that a net saving of emissions would have resulted from their action.  They did believe this and hence their actions were reasonable.

Consider the evidence of Dr. Hassen from NASA, contending that due to emissions, species were being lost and his descriptions of  human distress. The Stern Review refers to economic and social costs and being the authorities in their subject that they are, the defendants reasonably believed this. All the expert evidence in this trial only adds to the weight of evidence and concern. All seams to suggest that immediate action is required.  Amazingly, we are now burning more coal than in 1998.  In 2007, Ratcliffe Power Station emitted 9.3 million and a year later in 2008 had increased to 9.9 tons.

Right at the heart of this case and the necessity of action is the notion of ‘tipping points’.  There remains no agreement on what’s to be done.  There is simply no political will to reduce emissions,

The prosecutions idea of knocking on doors to convey their concern, simply to inform the public locally … it’s nowhere near enough to deal with such continued emissions. The prosecution says they haven’t engaged with the political process.  But they have!  They have done it all.  No political change. No international agreement. ‘Business as usual’ remains the position. The defendants therefore remain pessimistic about any change without the need to deliver a good kick.  He ridicules the prosecutions idea that going to Copenhagen to argue with American Republicans or to create a catchy slogan to illustrate climate change to the Chinese would have changed anything.

Energy Companies have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise profits. This is not balanced by government insisting on emission reductions from their activities. Profit being the prime motive in their operations, energy companies including E-on, have abandoned carbon capture experiments because they say they’re uneconomic.

Mr Rees says he has some experience of coal as he and his wife come from the South Wales valleys. The slag heaps are no longer there and those communities have gone.  But in opposition to what you might perceive as a lack of the coal industry production, coal burning at Ratcliffe and others is in fact rising. Cheap imported coal is what is now getting burned. With international politics, Middle East situations and oil price rising etc … coal burning will continue to rise.  The commercial imperative is driving the market.  ‘Business as usual’.

In contrast to politicians rhetoric and the associated lack of action, these people actually did something about it.  Without targets being set, there is simply no foreseeable action to be taken by governments and companies. The limited progress of the conferences at Cancún, Mexico happening now is showing us this. These defendants are genuinely concerned.  If that is so, it is proper to think you have to do something about it. Alternatively, is it in our experience of society that we should trust our betters or political representatives to take actions for us?

People had tried so many democratic means to express their concerns. But ‘business as usual’ has continued.  Would they have achieved more reductions in emissions had they tried any other means?

This was not the jolly that the prosecution have tried thought this trial to suggest.

Mr Rees has finished all presentations for the defence, and sits down.

His Honour Judge Teare now sums up the case for the jury. He started by saying that on waking up on that day and hearing on the radio of the arrest of the 114 people at Iona School in Nottingham … I wondered what poor devil is going to have to try this case  Grins all round again.

You the jury are to decide the fact of the case, I am the judge and you must follow my directions on the law. The prosecution must prove the case referring to the indictment. Now, there is no dispute that they were going to commit aggravated trespass. But, they say, they were justified in that action by necessity.  If you conclude, the defendants believed this, even mistakenly, then, they are not guilty.  They must act responsibly and proportionately in all the circumstances.  In deciding that, a crime may have been committed, but consider if their actions were reasonable and proportionate in preventing harm.

The case it to be considered by you against each of the defendants, individually.  Reach a verdict on which you are all agreed on all.  But if you can’t then we go through a process for each of them.

The Judge mentions that the trial is taking place at an inopportune time, with much press discussion of the Cancún, Mexico talks.  You are to put all that out of your mind and try the defendant on the evidence presented in this case.

With respect to the defendants ‘No Comment’ replies, during police interviews, the Judge says this should not be held against them. They had solicitors advice contained in the ‘bust card’ that all had read.  As this advises ‘No Comment’ replies, he says the jury should not draw any inference from that silence.

Judge then went on to an extensive reminder of the facts of the case.

The jury will retire tomorrow ….. and hence the case continues.