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.<\/p>\n
On the 13 April 2009, police prevented a large scale aggravated trespass that was to have taken place at Ratcliffe Power Station.\u00a0 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\u2019ve heard that the action cost \u00a315,000.\u00a0 I ask you to image what that money could have bought in public engagement. An iPhone application, celebrity endorsements, an air ticket to Canc\u00fan, Mexico.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Miss Gerry says that this action was not about saving carbon emissions but about publicity and hence was not reasonable or necessary.\u00a0 There was no necessity for this action. She sits down.<\/p>\n
For the defence, Mr Edward Rees QC begins his speech to the jury.\u00a0 He says, the principle issues in this case, it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Mr Rees mentions the Suffragette movement.\u00a0 Recounting a conversation with prosecution counsel earlier, she had said that those defendants were a \u2018load of wimps\u2019 next to the Suffragette example. They would have thrown themselves at the chimneys with skirts billowing!!\u00a0 He invites the jury to remember that this was happening not so long ago. It seems ridiculous to us now that women didn\u2019t have the vote.\u00a0 Looking back, future generations would look kindly on these people and their actions.<\/p>\n
A large and expensive police operation that must have been planned much earlier and must have been intelligence lead in character.\u00a0 Therefore, with this advance notice, why didn\u2019t the police or the company obtain an injunction to prevent any action? You\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n
Returning to the core word \u2018reasonableness\u2019.\u00a0 Action need to be proportionate to the threat perceived.\u00a0 This of course will vary to the circumstances.\u00a0 The jury will want to know, what is the test of this?\u00a0 If attacked, defensive action would be self-defence and thus a person would be not guilty.\u00a0 Likewise, if a person thought he was going to be attacked and that thought was in the circumstances, reasonable.\u00a0 Again, in those circumstances, he would be not guilty.<\/p>\n
Mr Rees says that the prosecution say that the action was not necessary since the defendants knew emissions wouldn\u2019t have been saved.\u00a0 This hare was set running by Mr Smith, the Ratcliffe Station Manager in his evidence.\u00a0 They produce no evidence about this. The fact was that coal stations were already running.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Thus, the defendants did reasonably believe that a net saving of emissions would have resulted from their action.\u00a0 They did believe this and hence their actions were reasonable.<\/p>\n
Consider the evidence of Dr. Hassen from NASA, contending that due to emissions, species were being lost and his descriptions of\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Amazingly, we are now burning more coal than in 1998.\u00a0 In 2007, Ratcliffe Power Station emitted 9.3 million and a year later in 2008 had increased to 9.9 tons.<\/p>\n
Right at the heart of this case and the necessity of action is the notion of \u2018tipping points\u2019.\u00a0 There remains no agreement on what\u2019s to be done.\u00a0 There is simply no political will to reduce emissions,<\/p>\n
The prosecutions idea of knocking on doors to convey their concern, simply to inform the public locally \u2026 it\u2019s nowhere near enough to deal with such continued emissions. The prosecution says they haven\u2019t engaged with the political process.\u00a0 But they have!\u00a0 They have done it all.\u00a0 No political change. No international agreement. \u2018Business as usual\u2019 remains the position. The defendants therefore remain pessimistic about any change without the need to deliver a good kick.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019re uneconomic.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 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 \u2026 coal burning will continue to rise.\u00a0 The commercial imperative is driving the market.\u00a0 \u2018Business as usual\u2019.<\/p>\n
In contrast to politicians rhetoric and the associated lack of action, these people actually did something about it.\u00a0 Without targets being set, there is simply no foreseeable action to be taken by governments and companies. The limited progress of the conferences at Canc\u00fan, Mexico happening now is showing us this. These defendants are genuinely concerned.\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n
People had tried so many democratic means to express their concerns. But \u2018business as usual\u2019 has continued.\u00a0 Would they have achieved more reductions in emissions had they tried any other means?<\/p>\n
This was not the jolly that the prosecution have tried thought this trial to suggest.<\/p>\n
Mr Rees has finished all presentations for the defence, and sits down.<\/p>\n
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 \u2026 I wondered what poor devil is going to have to try this case \uf04a Grins all round again.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 If you conclude, the defendants believed this, even mistakenly, then, they are not guilty.\u00a0 They must act responsibly and proportionately in all the circumstances.\u00a0 In deciding that, a crime may have been committed, but consider if their actions were reasonable and proportionate in preventing harm.<\/p>\n
The case it to be considered by you against each of the defendants, individually.\u00a0 Reach a verdict on which you are all agreed on all.\u00a0 But if you can\u2019t then we go through a process for each of them.<\/p>\n
The Judge mentions that the trial is taking place at an inopportune time, with much press discussion of the Canc\u00fan, Mexico talks.\u00a0 You are to put all that out of your mind and try the defendant on the evidence presented in this case.<\/p>\n
With respect to the defendants \u2018No Comment\u2019 replies, during police interviews, the Judge says this should not be held against them. They had solicitors advice contained in the \u2018bust card\u2019 that all had read.\u00a0 As this advises \u2018No Comment\u2019 replies, he says the jury should not draw any inference from that silence.<\/p>\n
Judge then went on to an extensive reminder of the facts of the case.<\/p>\n
The jury will retire tomorrow \u2026.. and hence the case continues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading