The latest
instalment of the Shenstone 5 Palestine Action Trial as the State is Determined
to Criminalise Protest Actions
This is now the
third week of the trial of the Shenstone 5. The Prosecution finished its case
last Wednesday and the Defence case began on Tuesday April 11 when my Cross
Examination began.
Judge Silas Reid - like Judge Chambers he is a second Prosecutor
Despite Judge
Chambers doing his best to rule out all my attempts to explain the reason
behind the action at Elbit as ‘political’ I managed to convey to the jury the
reasons behind our actions – the war crimes carried out by Elbit.
During the first
week I had fallen ill with gastro-enteritis but despite my barrister applying
for me to go home and lie down, Judge Michael Chambers refused the application
without giving any reason. I was not needed in the trial as it was then being
taken up with legal arguments and my barrister, Danielle Mason from Garden
Court Chambers argued that she did not need me to instruct her.
At that point I
simply walked out and called Chambers bluff. In the end no warrant for my
arrest was issued despite threats to do so.
This Tuesday
Danielle began my Evidence in Chief and then Deborah Gould, the humourless Prosecution
barrister began cross-examination.
It did not go
well for Gould as she tied herself down in knots trying to prove that Palestine Action was one vast conspiracy
aimed at targeting the benevolent Elbit Systems whose drones she alleged had purely
civil and commercial purposes.
As Skawkbox details
Gould was eventually reduced to pleading that I could have written to the local
MP, in ignorance of parliamentary procedure that you can only write to your
local MP, that I could have petitioned Elbit to be nicer, that I could have
submitted a Subject Access Request under the GDPR,
ignorant of the fact that this would only apply to information they held on me
(highly unlikely) or submit a Freedom of Information request which you can only
do to a public body not a private company.
Tony Greenstein
She even asked
if I had asked Elbit what they were producing that week and who their customers
were! Presumably Elbit, which goes to
extraordinary lengths to hide the names of customers like the regime in
Myanamar, would have willingly handed over the information! In fact kosher pigs are more likely to fly
first.
I testified that
one of the defendants, Helen Caney, was discernibly distressed and anxious and
that I had offered to take her back in the minibus to her home in Reading. When
she declined the offer I agreed to take her to the nearest railway station. Gould
then asked me if I had consulted the rail timetables, (!) had I informed the
Police who had arrested her along with us about her condition and implied that
I had not fulfilled my duty of care even though it is the Police who have that responsibility
not me. Especially since I was under arrest.
Helen, along
with one other protestor who had decided not to take part in the action, sat
with me at the front of the van. The three protestors who were intent on
occupying the roof of Elbit were dressed in red boiler suits. Those at the
front were not.
That should have
been enough but Gould is convinced that that was just a ploy and that all 6 of
us were determined to take part in the action. Gould is determined to wrongfully
convict all 5 of us despite the fact that I too had no intention of entering
the factory because
a) the minibus was due back at the rental hire
company at 5 pm the following day
b) because aged 67,
having had a liver transplant I was incapable of scaling 8 foot metal fences.
At one point I
was asked if I had mentioned Helen’s mental state and distress to my barrister,
at which point my barrister rose to her feet to object as it was a clear and
obvious breach of client-lawyer
privilege. Quite amazingly Judge Chambers overruled the objection
without giving any reason. Presumably this was on the basis that Chambers has a
rule whereby he consistently overrules all defence lawyers’ objections whilst
upholding all objections made by Prosecution counsel! His usual style is to cut
them off in mid-sentence without even bothering to hear them out.
.jpg)
To most people the Blue Badge is clearly visible but to Prosecutor Deborah Gould it was too big!
Yesterday we had
the Affair
of the Blue Badge. Gould thought she had found the smoking gun when
she asserted in cross-examination that my badge had been found in the back of
the van. Clearly I had intended to go into
the factory.
Clive Ponting's Prosecution in 1985 is famous because the Judge directed he be convicted and the Jury refusedI pushed back on
this and said it was impossible since I hadn’t been in the back, where bags
containing sledge hammers and a crowbar were stored in sealed bags. But Gould
was insistent that that was where they had been found citing a police witness statement.
The only problem was that when the Chambers examined what the policewoman had
actually said in cross-examination she said she couldn’t remember where she had
found it! It was only when she was referred to the statement she made at the
time that she had listed all the items found as being located in the back of
the van.
However Helen
Caney then gesticulated to the court from the dock that she had found a police
photograph of the van and sure enough my blue badge was there, on the
dashboard. However Gould was not to be thwarted. She asserted that it was too
big, even though it was on the dashboard and was blue.
As I finished my
cross-examination I walked out to a standing ovation from the public gallery
which resulted in a warning from Judge Chambers that he would clear the gallery
in future.
However
overnight she had asked the police to look into the matter further and sure
enough they came back with a wrapper that said it found in the front. No
apology was forthcoming from Gould however.
Towards the end
of today’s session Gould, who had been badgering away at the second defendant,
Ibrahim Samadi, trying to prove that we had been engaged in an operation of
military efficiency then questioned
him on a phone call I had apparently made to my wife, with my mobile
phone, whilst in police custody at 4.30 a.m on the 9th March.
The only problem
with this was that I didn’t have my mobile on me in police custody and furthermore
the Police had prevented me making any calls in custody, in breach of the
custody rules. At which point I shouted out that it was a lie and my barrister
got to her feet to object. If Gould was going to question anyone on a phone
call I had allegedly made then the person to question was me but she had
declined to do so yesterday for reasons best known to her. It resulted in a
blazing row between Gould and my counsel after Chambers had ended the day’s
session!
The obvious
thing for Gould to do tomorrow would for me to be called back to the witness box
to give evidence to that effect but I suspect Gould will try to wriggle out of
that as it would not serve her purposes of obtaining a wrongful conviction by
any means necessary.
As I have previously
documented British judges, who have always been the most loyal and
subservient members of the Establishment, are determined to help the Tories in
their attacks on defendant’s right to a free and fair trial.
