limit the kinds of defences available in such cases<\/a>.<\/p>\nForst had already written to the UK government to express concern over these developments, but issued his latest statement after getting no response. \u201cI fail to see how exposing Mr Shaw to a multi-year prison sentence for being on a Zoom call that discussed the organisation of a peaceful environmental protest is either reasonable or proportionate, nor pursues a legitimate public purpose,\u201d Forst wrote. \u201cRather, I am gravely concerned that a sanction of this magnitude is purely punitive and repressive.\u201d<\/p>\n
That Zoom call was a key piece of evidence for the prosecution case. Made just days before the M25 protests began, the call was, the prosecution said, part of efforts to recruit volunteers to take part in the direct actions. Unbeknown to those taking part, it been infiltrated by a Sun journalist, who recorded it and passed it to the Metropolitan police.<\/p>\nThe Just Stop Oil protest on the M25 forced police to stop traffic on four consecutive days.<\/span> Photograph: Just Stop Oil\/PA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nOn the face of it, the prosecution evidence seemed damning \u2013 and was mostly uncontested by the defendants. But it was only after prosecutors completed their case that events in court began to get really interesting.<\/p>\n
The defendants had wanted to mount a defence of reasonable excuse. They proposed inviting expert witnesses such as the geophysicist Bill McGuire, who has written extensively on the implications of climate breakdown, to explain why the urgency of the unfolding environmental crisis warranted their actions.<\/p>\n
Such defence strategies have worked in some previous cases, with defendants acquitted in the face of apparently conclusive evidence.<\/p>\n
But Hehir ruled that the defendants in this case could not present any evidence about climate to the court, save for brief statements of their \u201cphilosophical and political beliefs\u201d relating to climate breakdown, which ultimately would have no bearing on the verdict.<\/p>\n
It was in this context that, as the second week of the trial began, protesters began appearing each morning outside the court, displaying placards saying: \u201cJurors deserve to hear the whole truth.\u201d<\/p>\nPeople hold a vigil outside Reading crown court after 11 people were arrested outside Southwark crown court.<\/span> Photograph: Maureen McLean\/REX\/Shutterstock<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nOf the defendants, only Hallam disputed the role the prosecution claimed he played in the conspiracy. He told the court he had merely been asked to \u201cgive the case for civil disobedience\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cI wish to say on oath that I was not involved in this campaign,\u201d he said. However, he went on to argue that even if the jury determined he had played a role in the conspiracy, they should find him and his codefendants not guilty on the basis they had a reasonable excuse or justification for the actions they took.<\/p>\n
In a three-hour address, punctuated by interruptions from an irritated Hehir, Hallam lectured the jury on his interpretation of the law, and why, he claimed, it showed the activists had an excuse for blocking the M25 to raise the alarm about climate breakdown.<\/p>\n
Hehir told jurors that Hallam\u2019s legal analysis was peppered with mistakes. He repeatedly sent the jury out to admonish Hallam for referencing climate science he had ruled irrelevant to the case. But the judge proved more patient than the defendant seemed to expect. In the end, Hallam told jurors: \u201cI apologise to you if I\u2019m a little bit incoherent, I didn\u2019t actually expect that I was going to get this far.\u201d<\/p>\n
He did not get much further. The following morning, the judge brought Hallam\u2019s evidence to an end and, after the defendant refused to answer a cross-examination, and then refused to leave the witness box, insisting his evidence was not finished. Hehir called police into the court and had Hallam arrested for contempt.<\/p>\n
\u201cDemocracy in action guys! Democracy in action,\u201d Hallam said to watching reporters, as he was dragged into the dock, then down to the cells.<\/p>\n
It was the first of many such scenes. Later that same day, Shaw was arrested and taken to the cells in almost identical circumstances, and Hehir sent jurors \u2013 who had not witnessed the arrests \u2013 home early. \u201cI have never had to order a defendant to be arrested in a courtroom before and I\u2019m very sad to have had to do that not once, but twice today,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\nRoger Hallam, centre, told juror that activists had an excuse for blocking the M25 to raise the alarm about climate breakdown.<\/span> Photograph: Jordan Pettitt\/PA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nOn the face of it, Hallam and Shaw\u2019s theatrics looked self-defeating. But the defendants believed they contributed to a victory. The following morning, on agreement, four \u201cfacts not in dispute\u201d relating to the climate crisis were read into the court record by Fiona Robertson, second barrister for the crown. They were: that the climate crisis was \u201can existential threat to humanity\u201d; that warming above 1.5C would have catastrophic consequences; that in the past 12 months average global temperatures were 1.6C above the pre-industrial baseline; and that in October 2022 the government had opened a new round of oil and gas licensing \u2013<\/p>\n
It was a development the defendants and their supporters said amounted to the prosecution conceding the climate crisis was \u201can existential threat to humanity\u201d \u2013 and one that they were to refer to throughout the remaining days of the trial.<\/p>\n
Forst was in court to see this. He also witnessed much else. Hallam, bailed the previous day, was dragged out of court again after he began speaking straight to jurors during Lancaster\u2019s evidence. Shortly after, Shaw directly challenged the judge, asking: \u201cWhy are you not trying the people causing this crisis?\u201d He too was dragged out. Lancaster was next, for refusing to leave the witness box and that night, all three were remanded to prison. Gethin had to wait but was also arrested for contempt on both Monday and Tuesday.<\/p>\n
By the end of the trial, Whittaker De Abreu, the only one who had not represented herself, was the only defendant left in court.<\/p>\n
As a punishment for their \u201cpersistent disruption\u201d, Hehir slashed the time given to each defendant from one hour to 20 minutes. He further prohibited any mention of climate change, the legal defences he had disallowed or the principle of jury equity \u2013 the idea that jurors can acquit based on their conscience.<\/p>\n
As Hallam, Shaw, Lancaster and Gethin gave their speeches from behind the reinforced glass screen of the dock, they each proceeded to flout Hehir\u2019s prohibitions, arguing they had been denied a right to a fair trial.<\/p>\n
Hallam told jurors: \u201cIt\u2019s blindingly obvious to us here first that you have not been given all the evidence you need. You cannot be sure of our guilt if you are not sure that you have not been given the evidence \u2026 we have received no good reason why we are not allowed to tell you what is blindingly obvious, namely what I\u2019m not allowed to speak about.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you are not allowed to hear the blindingly obvious then it\u2019s not a fair trial is it?\u201d<\/p>\n
It took just a day\u2019s deliberations for the jury to unanimously find them guilty.<\/p>\n
Given the recent history of UK climate protest trials, which have seen defendants sentenced to jail for merely mentioning the words \u201cclimate change\u201d, and notwithstanding the dramatic arrests in court, Forst said he was surprised the judge gave them an opportunity to mention climate breakdown at all.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut the little latitude they had to mention climate change was in the meantime emptied of its very meaning by the fact that, overall, the jury was told to ignore most of it,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Forst also said he was dismayed by the judge\u2019s decision to refuse the defendants a chance to present more fully their evidence about climate breakdown. \u201cThat\u2019s precisely one of the serious concerns I have about what is happening in some courts in the UK. Defendants should be allowed to explain why they have decided to use non-conventional but yet peaceful forms of action, like civil disobedience, when they engage in environmental protest,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
It is not just in the UK that climate defenders are facing persecution, according to Forst, but the problems in this country are particularly acute. Protesters in countries such as France and Germany also face political opposition \u2013 and in some cases, police brutality \u2013 but when it came to judicial persecution, the UK was \u201cunique\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201c[Elsewhere] you see environmental activists who block roads or sporting events being sentenced to a fine, or even sometimes suspended prison sentences for instance,\u201d Forst said. \u201cHowever, while I don\u2019t have a full picture of what\u2019s happening in every country, the UK is a nightmare for climate activists from this point of view, in the sense that the sentences imposed in other countries are neither that harsh, nor that widespread.<\/p>\n
\u201cFacing several years of imprisonment for taking part in a Zoom call \u2013 this is something I have not seen anywhere else and it is shockingly disproportionate.\u201d<\/p>\n
The nightmare is only just beginning for Hallam, Shaw, Lancaster, Gethin and Whittaker De Abreu, who have all been remanded to prison before sentencing on Thursday 18 July. Hehir has indicated that they face long sentences.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
Source link <\/a>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/climate-change-7127153_1280.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/litigation-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n