Defend the right to protest – Defend the right of juries to reach a verdict according to their conscience!

Show solidarity with the 4 Elbit activists who have been convicted of trying to prevent war crimes

Registration

https://tinyurl.com/dthrcy6t

Letter to Judge Reid from signholders

UPDATE

WE HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCING HEARING THIS COMING MONDAY HAS BEEN POSTPONED TILL MONDAY 10^th JULY 

This meeting has been called because 4 Palestine Action protesters, including myself, were convicted on May 16 of ‘intent to cause criminal damage’ to the Shenstone factory of Israeli arms company Elbit which manufactures engines which power the drones that murder and maim Palestinian civilians, including children.

We were arrested on March 9 2021 whilst driving to the factory. Two months later Israel attacked Gaza and murdered over 250 people, including 50 children.

The eagerness to prosecute for breaches of the law doesn't extend to Boris Johnson or powerful politicians involved in the COVID frauds

Of course Elbit Systems Ltd. could have been prosecuted under the International Criminal Courts Act 2001 of being ancillary to the commission of war crimes. Section 52 of the Act holds that acts committed outside the UK will be treated as committed here by persons resident in this country.

Carol Vorderman on corruption in this government

Matt Hancock too hasn't had his collar felt by the Police - strange that

However the Police, Judges and Tory/Labour politicians are more concerned with the damage to Elbit’s factories from paint than the damage done to human beings. That is the ‘logic’ of capitalism.

Today our fundamental rights are under attack. People are being sent to prison just for using the terms “climate change” and “fuel poverty” in court and arrested for literally upholding the law concerning the right of juries to make decisions on their conscience.

In 1670, Bushel’s Case established the right of a jury to reach a verdict ‘according to their convictions.’ This allowed the acquittal of the protesters that toppled the statue of the slave trader, Edward Colston. Since then the Court of Appeal has withdrawn ‘lawful excuse’ from damage to property.

Palestine Action activists have been prevented from explaining their motives when on trial. Climate activists have also been prevented from discussing their motives in court. This undermining of the jury system is a huge attack on all of our rights.

Amy Pritchard & Giovanna Lewis who were both sentenced to imprisonment for daring to mention climate change

You can show solidarity with Tony Greenstein and the 3 other Elbit activists on Monday June 26 outside Wolverhampton court (10am)

[the date is still not finalised because probation reports haven’t yet been obtained on most of the defendants]

Come along to our Zoom meeting on Saturday June 24 at 6pm

to discuss the issues and how we can fight back. Register here: 

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_K4VLOrwARMueMGRUMnPjkg

Speakers include:

·         Huda Ammori from Palestine Action, which protests against factories supplying arms to Israel

• Kush Naker of Just Stop Oil
• Tim Crosland, Director of PlanB, which links mobilisation and litigation to hold power to account for the climate catastrophe
• Tony Greenstein, who is facing a custodial sentence and has been prevented from speaking out about his motives in court
• Deepa Driver on the fight for justice for Julian Assange

·         Cathy, Sally, Ollie arrested (28 April 23)

·         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1CZteBxvaU

The Tolpuddle Martyrs also defied the law in order to form a union - unfortunately the TUC leaders don't have a fraction of their courage today despite holding a Tolpuddle Festival each year

 

QUOTES FROM PROMINENT JUDGES, LAWYERS, AND SCHOLARS

Lord Patrick Devlin, a former Law Lord and legal scholar, said:

‘The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will: and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. Trial by jury is more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.’

As Marcel Berlins and Clare Dyer wrote

‘Lord Devlin, one of the great law lords, regarded the jury's right to bring in a perverse acquittal as one of the glories of our jury system.’

"It gives protection against laws which the ordinary man regards as harsh and oppressive . . . an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man's ideas of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement."

The BBC, Media and Politicians are always concerned about attacks on the right to protest in Hong Kong but never in Britain

Lord Justice Auld, a former Court of Appeal Judge said in 2001:

‘[Jury nullification] has been an accepted feature of our jury system for a long time and is seen as a useful long-stop against oppression by the State and as an agent, on occasion, of law reform.’

Melinda Janki, Guyana-based lawyer, and winner of the Commonwealth Rule of Law prize, 2023 said:

‘For decades ExxonMobil suppressed evidence that burning fossil fuels would destroy the global climate system. Today we in the Global South are living with the impacts. People are dying. Animals are dying. It is unconscionable and contrary to the rule of law for any judge to seek to suppress evidence of the destructive impacts of fossil fuels.’

Revd Dr Sue Parfitt, a priest and retired psychotherapist, said:

‘It’s a serious matter indeed if a jury feels unable to make decisions according to their conscience, just as it confounds the basis for the law in this land when defendants are prevented from telling the whole truth in court. Both rights must be defended.’

John Adams, lawyer, a leader of the American Revolution and later 2nd President of the USA, 1771, said:

‘It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.’

Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, said in 1920:

‘the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.’

E.P. Thompson, writer and historian, said in 1980:

‘The English common law rests upon a bargain between the Law and the People. The jury box is where people come into the court; the judge watches them and the jury watches back. A jury is the place where the bargain is struck. The jury attends in judgment, not only upon the accused, but also upon the justice and humanity of the law….’

Michael Randle, addressing the jury in his own defence said:

‘The judge, Judge McCowan, in his summing up to the jury virtually directed them to find Clive Ponting guilty. He told the jury that the interests of the State were synonymous with the policies of the State and these were determined by the government of the day. Ponting's motives, he said were irrelevant. The jury should forget about any concept of moral duty. But the jury did not forget the concept of moral duty or were unwilling to accept the judge's contention that the interests of the state were synonymous with the policies of the government. They brought in a verdict of Not Guilty. The lamp of freedom shone more brightly that day, and a dangerous shift towards arbitrary power was avoided. I appeal to you today to keep that lamp burnished and shining and to allow considerations of humanity and common sense to guide your judgement. I invite you to agree with us that what we did was right and to find us Not Guilty.’

Matt Hutchings KC, a leading Barrister from London, said:

‘Our country is in crisis. The root cause is a clash between a government and media bosses who are acting at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, and our citizens, ordinary people who are calling for a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels to green and clean energy. When people are charged with offences which they committed because of their sincere beliefs about the climate crisis, the jury should be allowed to hear evidence about these beliefs. It is not right that juries are prevented by judicial directions from hearing the truth about why the defendants are in the dock. The eminent judge Sir Patrick Devlin wrote in his book 'Trial by Jury' that juries were "an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man's idea of what is fair and just". At a time when our democratic values and institutions are under attack, it is vital that we defend one of our sacred democratic principles: the independence of juries.’

Rabbi Jeffrey Newman from North London said: 

‘Intention is an ancient concept, fundamental in Jewish & British law, for example in distinguishing between murder and manslaughter. It seems to me, therefore, that we cannot disregard motivation when we come to look at actions and consequences in other contexts. As a Jew, and a rabbi - that is, a Jewish teacher - I have had to think very carefully about issues of obedience to the law and where and when a state may enact laws that a citizen, after careful and honest consideration, decides cannot and should not be obeyed. At such times, courageous protest by posters, placards or leaflet distribution have been prohibited by repressive regimes. Judges have sometimes focussed the attention of juries too narrowly thereby causing much harm. At this time, we must consider with all due wisdom the needs of our planet and all its species and of future generations as we assess the proportionality of protest.’

Paul Stephens, 58, a former Police Officer, said:

‘I joined the police in 1983 to protect the good people from the bad. Simplistic I know but I was 19. The legal system in the UK is doing the exact opposite. They are protecting polluters, allowing increased harm and obscene profits; whilst prosecuting people trying to save life in a way that is so unjust; gagging them from sharing their motivation with the jury. Extinction changes everything and the legal system must wake up and become a force for good.’

Heather Hallett, a member of the Court of Appeal from 2005-2019 and currently chairing the Public Inquiry into the COVID pandemic. In her 2017 Blackstone Lecture on the Role of the Jury said:

A jury may refuse to convict in spite of the law and the evidence because it concludes that the law is an unjust law. The jury passes its verdict on the law. Secondly, it ensures that the prosecution and the judge are on trial….

These trials all took place in the full glare of publicity. Here we see a specific application of the principle of open justice: the public can attend court and scrutinise what is going on. They can see the jury make its protest as to what they see as an unjust law or unjust application of the law. There is a check against arbitrary or oppressive conduct by the court. Here the 17th century rationale lives on despite Caverno’s claim. We see as Professor Zander has properly pointed out the jury can set aside ‘unjust laws, oppressive prosecutions and harsh sentences.’

Law Lord Lord Hoffmann confirmed this in R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 161 (89) when he stated:

My Lords, civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.

Trudi Warner (3 March 23)

Save Our Juries

A new group Save our Juries has been set up, the purpose of which is to protect and defend the right to a fair trial through the power of collective action, as judges undermine it by concealing from juries their proper role

Save Our Juries will defend and protect the right to a fair trial and shine a spotlight on the repression that is taking place by: 

1.    Literally upholding the law on signs which explain a jury’s right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience

2.    The power of silence and blank signs as a symbol of state repression. 

More than 20 people have already been referred to the Attorney General for upholding the law on our signs. The more the state reacts against us the more it exposes to the public its violence and authoritarianism. If you want to take collective action against the Government’s programme of repression at this critical moment.

Just as the fossil fuel companies and others have for decades hidden the truth of the climate and ecological crises from the public to maintain their profits, the British judiciary now perpetuates the suppression of evidence through the courts, including by:

1.     Banning those engaged in campaigns of political defiance from explaining their motivations and beliefs to the jury

2.     Telling the jury that motives, even if articulated, are irrelevant and must be ignored

3.     Sending people to prison just for using the terms “climate change” and “fuel poverty” in court

4.     Banning references to a jury’s right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience

5.     Arresting and referring for prosecution those who remind jurors of their right to make decisions on their conscience.

6.     Directing the jury that defences such as necessity, proportionality or reasonable excuse are not available.

7.     Limiting the time to present a defence to 15 minutes.

Jury trials are being turned into show trials, with the jury being used just to rubber-stamp the politicised directions of the judge.

Save Our Juries will campaign to protect & defend the right to trial by jury by nonviolent collective action.

The principle that juries can acquit a defendant on their conscience (“jury nullification”) has a long history. It was first established in 1670 when the Recorder of London tried to compel a jury to convict two Quaker preachers, William Penn and William Mead, for holding an unlawful assembly. Chief Justice Vaughan, of the Court of Common Pleas ruled that juries have the right to “give their verdict according to their convictions”. That ruling is celebrated with a marble plaque in the Old Bailey.

Because of that principle, the penalty of hanging for stealing sheep was abolished in this country because juries refused to convict people of that offence. After the passing of the Fugitive Slaves Act 1850, many US juries declined to convict those who had helped the enslaved to gain their freedom. In 1985, a British jury acquitted Clive Ponting for breach of the Official Secrets Act after he leaked a document which exposed the Government’s lies over the sinking of the Argentine ship, General Belgrano, with the loss of 368 lives, despite the judge’s direction that he had no defence in law.

The Jury is the “Achilles heel” in the Government’s programme of repression against those expressing defiance against its authoritarian policies. It only takes 3 out of 12 jurors to prevent a guilty verdict. If ordinary people are empowered to act on their conscience, as is their right, and presented with the relevant context, many will refuse to convict their fellow citizens who have been taking a stand against the corruption of the fossil fuel industry or those who are supplying arms with which to commit war crimes.

If juries routinely decline to convict, that’s not embarrasses the Government, it haemorrhages one of their primary sources of power, repression through the criminal courts. That’s why such extreme measures have been taken to bypass juries in conscience cases.

When Trudi Warner, a retired social worker held up a placard communicating the jury’s right to make decisions of conscience, she was arrested and sent to the Old Bailey. When 24 of us replicated her action in May outside Inner London Crown Court, Judge Reid referred us to the Attorney General for contempt of court. Those taking part included Quakers, health professionals, a priest, legal professionals and a retired police officer.

The Attorney General, the Government’s most senior legal adviser, now faces a dilemma. See The Times. She can either decline to prosecute, undermining the authority of the judges. Or she can prosecute us, in which case there will be more of us and the assault on trial by jury will be brought to national and international attention.

Likely and unlikely allies

Save Our Juries is a natural point of intersection for diverse campaigns and movements, including anti-racism, peace and climate movements. Juries have acquitted those who toppled the statue of the slave-trader, Edward Colston, those attempting to block violent deportations, and those resisting climate breakdown and fuel poverty. Likewise a judge had recently ruled that those blocking the sale of drones to Israel which would be used to target Palestinians, could not explain their motivations to the jury and could not inform the jury of their right to acquit as a matter of conscience.

Save Our Juries reaches across political divides. When someone’s liberty is at stake, the right to a fair hearing and the right to trial by jury are fundamental even to a ‘conservative’ sense of British justice. Judge Reid’s actions have already been gathering support from some unlikely sources, see for example “Protesters must be allowed to explain motives in court”, The Times:

 “Whether you sympathise with Insulate Britain or regard them as woke tofu-munchers, surely any defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to defend themselves when their liberty is at stake? … Banning all reference to motive also compromises the jury. Shouldn’t jurors be able to consider whether these protestors were acting out of conscience?”

Save Our Juries campaigns to prevent the suppression of evidence and the subversion of democracy (hence its support for the self-determination of peoples and the decolonisation of land, education and ecosystems). Initially, Save Our Juries will support the following collective actions:

1.           Upholding the law on signs

Upholding the law on a sign outside court for an hour (e.g. between 9 and 10am) is a simple, accessible and powerful action. It presents the State with a deep dilemma. It must either:

i)  criminalise people for literally upholding the law, exposing to public view its repressive nature; or

ii)  permit jurors to be empowered by being informed of their right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience, risking a critical mass of jury acquittals.

A letter can be handed in to the presiding Judge, openly communicating the rationale for the action (such as the letter handed to Judge Reid by the 24 signholders in May).

2.           The power of silence (and blank signs) as a symbol of oppression

Blank signs may be held outside courts where defendants are being prevented from explaining their motives and advancing a defence (blank signs being the international symbol of state repression).

Campaign launch: at Gail Bradbrook’s trial at Isleworth CC (Monday 17th July), and on Friday 21st July) at Isleworth, ILCC, Hove, and other Crown Courts

If you’re interested in joining a sign-holding action in July (or at some later date), please email us at saveourjuries@protonmail.com

Unity not uniformity

There is a central working group of 5-6 people who have been working on the development of the campaign, action designs and the essential administration and care that allows people to take action.

Given the diversity of the movement, different groups engaging in the campaign will know best how to communicate with their communities. Quakers involved in the campaign, for example, have emphasised the role of Quakers in establishing the original precedent on the principle of jury nullification in 1670:

Tony Greenstein

“Quakers stand up for vital legal precedent established in 1670 Quaker trial”.

Contact

To join or support the campaign, please contact saveourjuries@protonmail.com.

Useful references

A.      PATTERN OF JURY ACQUITTALS

“We took direct action against the UK’s racist policies, and a jury acquitted us. Resistance can succeed” (Guardian, 16 June 23)

“Extinction Rebellion co-founder cleared of further charge in paint-throwing case” (Independent, 21 February, 2023)

“Insulate Britain activists cleared in court after M4 protest” (Bristol Post, 16 January 23)

“The government is undermining the idea of trial by jury after Colston Four verdict” (Independent, 20 April 22)

“Juries keep letting Extinction Rebellion off the hook — here’s why” (Evening Standard, 8 April 22)

“UK activists keep being acquitted by juries. What does that mean for protest?” Open Democracy, 22 January 22

“Grant Shapps slams Bristol jury for clearing Colston Four” (Daily Mail, 6 January 22)

“Jurors see the bigger picture: activists who were cleared in court”, (Guardian, 6 January 22)

“Jury acquits Extinction Rebellion protesters despite ‘no defence in law’” (Guardian, 23 April 21)

“Extinction Rebellion founder cleared of vandalism in landmark case after arguing climate change justification” (Independent, 10 May 2019)

B.       TRUTH-TELLING AND SOLIDARITY ACTIONS TO DATE

 “Climate activists risk contempt charges over placards outside court” (The Times, 2 June 23)

“Judge refers doctors, priest and Olympic Gold medalist to Attorney General over

alleged contempt of court” (Press release, 2 June 23)

“Judges join lawyers in the bear pit” (Law Society Gazette, 23 May 23)

“17 May 2023: Judge Silas “Silencing” Reid defeated by show of solidarity for retired social worker arrested for holding up a sign” (Press release, 17 May 23)

“Climate activists call crown court judge ‘unprincipled bully’ during protest” (Independent, 15 May 23)

“Protesters must be allowed to explain motives in court” (The Times, 13 March 23)

“Insulate Britain activist jailed for eight weeks for contempt of court” (Guardian, 7 February 23)

“Activists jailed for seven weeks for defying ban on mentioning climate crisis” (Open Democracy, 3 March 23)

“Climate activist who allegedly held sign directed at jurors may be charged” (Guardian, 4 April 23)

C.       ACTION AND MEDIA RESOURCES

Video and stills from signholders and others

Still pics

D.         OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS

 “‘Not only a right, but a duty’: A history of perverse verdicts” (Justice Gap)

“Jury Nullification: The Short History of a Little Understood Power” (Midlands Historical Review)

School syllabus (Penn and Mead)

History GCSE: The Conventicle Act of 1664 and the Independence of the Jury (BBC)

The Auld Review, September 2001, Juries, paras. 99ff

“Lawyers For Israel Oppose Conscience”, Craig Murray, 20 May 23

Fully Informed Jury Association (US)

Jury Nullification (Wikipedia)

British Judges such as Silas Reid Would Have Been Happy in Nazi Germany Since It Also Outlawed the Right to Protest and a Fair Trial

We should not forget that Democratic Rights were Won in the Teeth of Opposition by a Reactionary Judiciary

Contempt For Justice

Today in Britain we have an unpopular Government and an almost equally unpopular Opposition, both of which agree on the need to curtail democratic rights and direct action. As environmental disaster beckons, we have a government intent on ramping up carbon emissions by approving of new oil fields in the North Sea.

Their answer to direct action protests is not to change course but to attack the right to protest. The judiciary, which likes to think of itself as independent, has joined forces with the Executive.

As groups like Extinction Rebellion, Climate Action and Just Stop Oil take direct action in response to the climate crisis, the government, in hock as it is to the oil industry, has resorted to repression.

First there was the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act and today a Public Order Act which puts greater power in the hands of the same police forces which are riddled with corruption, rapists and racists (in no particular order).

This legislation was preceded by the Overseas Operations Bill which made it much harder to prosecute British personnel for serious crimes – including torture – overseas as well as the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill (Spycops Bill) which was even more abhorrent. It granted a host of state agencies the power to commit grave crimes with legal immunity. This is a giant leap forward to a police state yet British judges have remained silent.

There was a time, in the 1990s and 2000s when a succession of liberal judges presided over the Supreme Court and as Lord Chief Justice such as Thomas Bingham, described as ‘the greatest jurist of our time’, Lord Taylor who presided over the  Hillsborough Disaster Inquiry and uncovered Police malfeasance, Lord Steyn, Baroness Hale and Stephen Sedley. It is perhaps no accident that Taylor, Sedley and Steyn were Jewish.

Today we have seen a return to a reactionary judiciary under Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court and the execrable Lord  Burnett who presided over the Assange hearing.

If   Burnett had any integrity he would have recused himself from the Assange case since he is a close friend of former Minister Alan Duncan, who described Assange as a “miserable little worm”.

Assange is a litmus test for the judiciary. He has been imprisoned for four years, without charge because of an extradition request from the United States. His only offence being to reveal multiple war crimes.

This is not my paranoia. Last year The Economist published Britain’s Supreme Court takes a conservative turn. Prospect Magazine carried The government wanted to rein in the Supreme Court. Now it may not need to. After the backlash from the right-wing press and the Mail with its ‘Enemies of the People’ headline, when the Supreme Court rejected Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament, the Judiciary have unilaterally surrendered to the government.

The Supreme Court’s shameful decision on Shamima Begum, which was contrary to international law on statelessness was one indication of the new ‘security minded’   court.  In another decision, where two mothers challenged the government’s decision to restrict tax credits and universal credit to two children, Reed went out of his way to attack those bringing the action.

Nicholas Reed Langen lamented the “trend towards deference.” This is the political backcloth to the attack of government and judges on the right to protest. This increasing judicial reaction occurred as juries have been returning what the Right see as authorities are ‘perverse verdicts’ of  ‘not guilty’ against direct action protesters.

The Establishment was outraged by a Bristol jury which acquitted those who dumped the statue of Edward Colston, a mass murderer and slave trader, into Bristol harbour. The government sought ‘clarification’ from the Court of Appeal as to whether defendants could cite human rights in their defence in a case of criminal damage.

One wonders whether the judges would have approved of a statue of Hitler being erected in Golder’s Green yet the Court of Appeal found that human rights defences should only be considered by courts in protest-related cases if the damage is ‘minor’ and ‘low-value’. It thus put a threshold on when people can enact their human rights.

The affront to Black British citizens never crossed the minds of these miserable judicial wretches who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. The courts have always prioritised the needs of property over people. It was another reactionary judge Lord Denning who ruled in LB Southwark v Williams that

“necessity would open a door which no man could shut…If hunger were once allowed to be an excuse for stealing the plea would be an excuse for all sorts of wrong doing. The courts must take a firm stand.”

The ruling by the Court of Appeal found expression in the decision of Judge Silas Reid in climate change cases to gaol for contempt defendants who mentioned why they took direct action. This has meant that people are unable to put forward any defence and is clearly contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights:

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of
any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair
and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law.

It is also contrary to Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same offence.

It is or should be obvious to all except the most narrow minded judge that if you can’t say why you are innocent the trial must be unfair. None of this is surprising since the history of British justice is a history of conflict between protest and a reactionary judiciary.

In Fascist Judges Craig Murray described how in Irmtrud Wojak’s biography of Fritz Bauer, a concentration camp survivor who became the most important prosecutor of the Nazis in Germany, Bauer detailed how the Nazis didn’t have to find their own judges. Most of the German legal establishment had simply adapted themselves to applying Nazi laws.

It was one of the scandals of the post-war Federal Republic of Germany that judges who had served the Nazis so well continued in post. Does anyone seriously believe that if a fascist regime arose in Britain that the judges would defend our rights? Craig wrote how

The current legal establishment will adapt themselves to the legal framework of whatever sort is ordained by the rulers. Anybody expecting judges to defend liberties is likely to be sorely disappointed. They will happily remove the ability of juries to defend liberty too.

Judge Silas Reid – a model fascist judge

Silas Reid would have no difficulty in becoming a model Nazi judge, dispatching a British Sophie Scholl to the guillotine or gallows.

Sent to prison by Silas Reid for trying to "tell the whole truth"

David Nixon

In October 2021, David Nixon took part in an Insulate Britain roadblock whose aim was to arouse the public and media to the need to insulate homes, to tackle fuel poverty and reduce carbon emissions.

Six previous trials of people involved in similar actions had ended in two acquittals, two guilty verdicts, and two deferred (in one of these the Judge asked the prosecution whether it was in the public interest to continue).

Protesters are being tried for the ‘archaic’common law offence of causing a public nuisance. Silas Reid told the defendants at Inner London Crown Court that while they might genuinely believe that they had been performing a public good and not a public nuisance jurors should not take their motivations into account.

Appearing at Inner London Crown Court with three others, Nixon was warned by Silas not to mention climate or fuel poverty during the trial. In response to an accusation that 8,500 people had had their bus journeys disrupted Nixon told the jury that coincidentally 8,500 people had died that same year as a result of fuel poverty.

Silas Reid cleared the court and demanded Nixon apologise. As Reid directed the jury to leave the court, Nixon continued:

That’s before moving on to climate change. Posters around the court building are saying that we are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.

“You’ve not been able to hear these truths because this court has not allowed me to say them. Our safety is at risk, our society is at risk.

“I have only one apology: that Insulate Britain did not get our demand met.”

When he refused to apologise on the grounds that his duty was to ‘tell the whole truth’ he was sentenced to an eight-week prison sentence for contempt of court. Reid has been accused of “stripping away” protesters’ legal defences following the sentencing of Nixon because he defied Reid’s instruction not to cite the climate crisis as motivation for his participation in the same Bishopsgate roadblock in 2021.

After the jury returned, Reid told them to disregard Nixon’s statements. Reid told jurors:

This is not a trial about climate change, fuel poverty, etc. Matters relating to that are not relevant to your deliberations, no matter how much Mr Nixon wants them to be.

While the jury went out to consider their verdict, Nixon admitted contempt and declined two offers from Reid to apologise, telling Silas Reid: “I wish I could but I don’t think it would be genuine.”

The jury returned to court and found the four protesters guilty. Nixon was standing trial alongside Kai Bartlett, Alyson Lee and Christian Murray-Leslie. Reid said he would sentence them at a later hearing.

On four occasions, defendants have defied Silas’s instruction in their closing speeches to the jury. Those trials were immediately halted, juries sent out, and the defendant removed to a cell for ‘contempt of court’. In three cases, Judge Reid has then gone on to sentence the defendant to several weeks in prison. Perhaps because of the concerns expressed, he decided to take no further action in the last case. Barrister Paul Powlesland said:

"Judge Reid jailing David for speaking the truth to a jury in his defence is an outrageous threat to some of our oldest and most precious liberties…. If you are on a jury trying a peaceful climate protester, the judge may be preventing them from mentioning the climate crisis in their defence. Remember that you have an absolute right to acquit them on your conscience.

"Such an acquittal cannot be appealed and you will never be asked to explain or justify it…. Citizens pushing back on judges is what has kept the right to jury trial alive over the centuries."

Several leading lawyers protested outside the court during one of the contempt of court hearings. In an interview Powlesland reminded us about the 17^th century Bushel’s case, where a judge locked up the jury without food and water for two days to try and force a guilty verdict, but which ended up setting a legal precedent – the right for a jury to acquit on their conscience. The case is celebrated by a plaque inside the Old Bailey (where it is visible to court users, including jurors).

Former Barrister Tim Crosland, who himself has been disbarred for telling the truth, said:

"The British courts have lost the plot. Infuriated by the habit of juries acquitting climate protestors, a new policy has been adopted in which the judge bans climate protestors from referring to climate change during their trial, and when the defendant honours their oath to tell the whole truth and explains to the jury why they did what they did, the judge holds them in contempt of court for defying their gagging order."

Amy Pritchard & Giovanna Lewis

Giovanna Lewis, 65, from Dorset; Amy Pritchard, 37, from London; and Paul Sheeky, 46, from Warrington, were accused of blocking a major junction in central London on 25 October 2021 at around 8am. All three denied the charges.

The jury heard that 25 arrests had been made that morning as protesters lay in the road while others glued themselves to the ground, bringing rush hour traffic on Upper Thames Street and Bishopsgate to a standstill that lasted hours.

In his opening address Reid warned that the defendants had hoped being able to talk about climate and ecological crises as motivation for their actions would “touch people’s hearts” and bring morality to proceedings. Reid said:

“It seems to me that the desires of the defendants to speak about the motivations of their actions is that they believe that the jury will look at the case in a moral way rather than in a legal way. That would be wholly wrong.”

This is an amazing statement that confirms that judges like Silas Reid live in an ethical free zone devoid of all morality. See ‘For history to judge, not the jury’: judge rules climate crisis ‘irrelevant’

This latest crackdown followed a ruling by the Attorney General after the Home Secretary’s appeal against the acquittal of the Colston Four (who toppled the Bristol statue). The Attorney General’s ruling, along with the earlier Ziegler ruling, restrict the defences available to someone accused of protest-related charges such as criminal damage or public nuisance, ruling out any balancing exercise relating to human rights or any defence of ‘necessity’ (attempting to prevent a greater evil).

Although there is some leeway for judges to decide how much a jury can hear from defendants, protest trials often begin with legal arguments where the prosecution ask the judge to rule out all such  defences at the start of the trial, while defence lawyers argue the jury should hear them. The judge can also direct the jury at the end of the trial to ignore elements that are deemed irrelevant in law.

Real Media reported the five-week trial of Burning Pink activists during which evidence of the extent of the climate crisis was heard. All but two out of 20 charges against 12 people ended in acquittal.

A group calling themselves Fair Justice Project have been posting notices in the streets near the Old Bailey displaying legal information about the right for jurors to acquit on their conscience.

The right to acquit on conscience (but the jury mustn’t know)

On the morning of 27^th March, retired social worker, Trudi Warner, used similar wording on a banner and stood for half an hour on the pavement of the road leading to the juror’s entrance at the court.

When she returned to court later that week, she was ambushed by police and arrested for contempt of court. Held in a cell for the rest of the day, she appeared before the British version of Roland Freisler, President of the Nazi People’s Court, at 5pm and told she must appear at the Old Bailey on 4th April for contempt proceedings (“contempt in the face of the court attempting to influence the jury”).

After hearing from her solicitor, Mr Justice Cavanagh gave his decision that:

 “It is not the case in any trial that jurors can acquit by their conscience if by that it is meant they can disregard evidence and directions given by the judge and decide on their own beliefs whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence. To do so would be a breach of their jury oath and cause injustices.”  

Cavanagh’s ruling is a clear attempt to roll back the rights of a jury and is indicative of the period we are living in. A jury can acquit for any reason whatsoever. They are not accountable for their decision to anyone. It is clearly stated on the plaque that adorns the Old Bailey, celebrating the decision in Bushell’s that

Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established “The Right of Juries” to give their Verdict according to their Opinions.

Either Cavanagh is an ignorant bigot or he is determined to overturn a celebrated decision of over 500 years standing in the  Judges’ attempt to bow the knee to the present Tory Government. (see below)

Cavanagh ruled that the case should be referred to the Attorney General. In the meantime, appeals have been lodged in relation to several of Reid’s Insulate Britain trials and several trials scheduled for after Easter have been deferred until those appeals are decided.

A woman who attended in support, was arrested at the Old Bailey for allegedly “attempting to pervert the course of justice” in connection with putting up a poster near Inner London Court. If anything it is Cavanagh and Silas Reid who are guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Bushel’s case sets a so-far inalienable right in law. So the question is, where can it be legal to display a banner celebrating this case, and more importantly, where and why could it NOT be legal to display this tenet of British law?

Hidden forces pushing change in our democracy and rights, exposes some of the power and money behind the recent crackdown on protest rights. See also Climate protester confronts judge over ‘amoral’ order on what jury could hear

Four Insulate Britain protesters appeared at Inner London Crown Court before Judge Silas Reid ahead of their sentencing next week.

Insulate Britain campaigners (left to right) Stephen Pritchard, Roman Paluch-Machnik, Ruth Cook and Oliver Rock, outside Inner London Crown Court ahead of their sentencing for road blockages protests (Jordan Pettitt/PA) / PA Wire

Another road-blocking protester who could face jail confronted Silas Reid over the decision to ban him from mentioning his climate-related motivations to a jury. Stephen Pritchard used his speech ahead of his sentencing to condemn the order made by Silas Reid:

I think that your rulings were amoral; I believe also they were irrational given the situation that we’re in

The Buddhist and former parish councillor appeared at Inner London Crown Court alongside former probation officer Ruth Cook, 71, gardener Roman Paluch-Machnik, 29, and carpenter Oliver Rock, 42.

All four were convicted by a jury of causing a nuisance to the public by obstructing the highway after they stopped traffic at Junction 3 of the M4 on October 1 2021. Insulate Britain said they are the first protesters to be convicted of causing a public nuisance – a common law offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Silas Reid had ruled that they should not mention their climate motivations during their trial, but asked them to “concentrate as much as possible on motivation” in their speeches ahead of sentencing. He told them:

“Blocking the road in the way you did, if it was done for no reason, is a serious matter and would result in a prison sentence.”

Addressing Reid, Pritchard said:

“People’s lives are being lost. The only possible way I could imagine stopping peaceful civil resistance in this context is for you to tell me that this country has stopped pumping greenhouse gases into the air.

“I’m well aware of what prison is like, having been to prison. It’s not a very nice place. But I feel like I’m already a prisoner of my conscience.”

Cook said she had spent decades “upholding the law” but resorted to disruptive protests so she could “look her grandchildren in the eye”.

Speaking about Silas Reid’s imposition of limits to their defence, the grandmother from Frome gestured to the jury bench and said:

I’m really aware of those empty seats. I am going to say things now that I wish they would have been able to hear, so that they weren’t discussing traffic data and listening to boring statistics about traffic, but knew why we did what we did.

Cook, who is also a Quaker, said her work delivering aid in Africa on behalf of Oxfam and the Refugee Council and seeing climate refugees on the continent

“changed me fundamentally. I saw the impact that the climate emergency was having on their lives

The defendants also mentioned the impact the campaign had had on their friend Xavier Gonzalez-Trimmer, who killed himself after spending time in prison over an Insulate Britain protest. Pritchard said:

“He was a brave, gentle and caring human being who could see the future we were facing and was desperate to do something about it, and now he’s dead.”

Paluch-Machnik used his speech to highlight the impact of climate change, adding: “This isnt a belief system of mine, this is a measurable process.” The four will return to the same court for sentencing by Silas Reid.

The Rights of A Jury and Bushel’s Case 1670

Prior to Bushell’s Case, for nearly four centuries, jurors had been subject to coercion, fines and imprisonment if they disregarded the wishes of the judge. The jury was not independent as it is today, but more a ventriloquism act, “the judge with thirteen voices” any time the judge wished to determine the verdict. The grandfather authority for the coercion probably was a case in 19 Edward III (1346), which suggested that jurors "might be dragged about in carts at the tail of the [Circuit] Justices from assize-town to assize-town until they could make up their minds". [The Four Jurors in Bushell's Case, Wilmer G. Mason, American Bar Association Journal, JUNE 1965]

In August 1670, William Penn, who went on to found Pennsylvania, and William Mead were charged with “unlawfully and tumultuously” assembling to preach and speak during a Quaker worship session on London’s Gracechurch Street. The jury found them not guilty. The outraged judges, the Mayor and Recorder of London, refused to accept the decision and told the jurors to keep deliberating. The jury was sent back with the warning that

“you shall not be dismissed until we have a decision that the court will accept; and you shall be imprisoned up, without meat, drink, fire, or smoke…. With God’s aid, we’ll get a decision, or you’ll starve to death.”

The jury returned two days later, finding both defendants not guilty. For contempt of court, the judge fined them. One of the jurors, Edward Bushel, refused to pay the fine required for his release. Instead, he petitioned the Court of Common Pleas for a writ of habeas corpus, contesting the legality of his detention. He was released two months later after the court approved the writ.

The case of Bushel resulted in a landmark ruling on the role of jurors. Lord Chief Justice Vaughan declared the fines and imprisonment imposed unconstitutional and held that a jury could not be punished for its decision, effectively ending judges’ ability to control verdicts based on political whim and establishing the jury’s independent power. Bushel’s Case established the concept of jury nullification, in which a jury overturns an unconstitutional statute by declaring a defendant not guilty, regardless of whether the jury believes the prisoner is guilty precisely by the wording of the law.

Lady Justice Hallett Blackstone Lecture  on Trial by Jury.

In May 2017, LJ Hallett gave an interesting lecture on the role of the jury. For Lord Camden it was ‘the foundation of our free constitution’. For Lord Eldon the ‘greatest blessing which the British Constitution had secured to the subject’. For Lord Devlin, ‘the lamp that shows that freedom lives.’ For Lord Judge, ‘a safeguard against oppression and dictatorship’.  Blackstone refers to it as “the sacred bulwark of our liberties.” Thomas Erskine said that

 ‘Criminal justice in the hands of the people is the basis of freedom. While that remains there can be no tyranny, because the people will not execute tyrannical law against themselves. Whenever it is lost, liberty must fall along with it. . .’

Similarly, in the early nineteenth century, people were still being hanged for sheep, horse and cattle stealing and for robberies to the value of 40 shillings - raised in 1827 to £5. Juries deliberately undervalued goods stolen to avoid sending offenders to the gallows.

Heather Hallett stressed in her lecture that a jury may refuse to convict in spite of the law and the evidence because it concludes that the law is an unjust law. The jury passes its verdict on the law. Secondly, it ensures that the prosecution and the judge are on trial. Hallett went on to quote Professor Michael Zander that the jury can set aside ‘unjust laws, oppressive prosecutions and harsh sentences.’ 

Hallett gave the example of the case of Dr Leonard Arthur a highly respected consultant paediatrician who, as he saw it, put the interests of his patients and their parents first. John Pearson was born with Down’s syndrome and abnormalities of his lung, heart and brain. Dr Arthur wrote in the case notes, "Parents do not wish the baby to survive. Nursing care only."

Despite what to the lawyer may have appeared a confession to the charge of attempted murder, the jury acquitted him. Their verdict has been construed as a refusal to convict a doctor of murder for 'allowing a severely handicapped baby to die' even if the law was against him.

The case in 1985 of Clive Ponting, a civil servant, was another example. In the judge’s view he had broken the Official Secrets Act by passing on secret information to a politician but the jury refused to convict, upholding his claim that disclosure was in the public interest.

To again quote Hallett, the jury

is a check against the authority of government and Parliament, which ensures that they take heed of the judgment the public passes on what they do. It is the means by which individuals can ‘feel that the law is theirs’, that the law reflects and continues to be consistent with the ‘attitudes and mores’ of society generally.

Lord Sumption: civil disobedience has begun

The views of Lord Sumption, a member of the Supreme Court between 2012 and 2018 on civil disobedience are also interesting.

Sometimes the most public spirited thing that you can do with despotic laws like these [COVID laws] is to ignore them. I think that if the government persists long enough with locking people down, depending on the severity of the lockdown, civil disobedience is likely to be the result. … whatever Mr Hancock says. People are doing that to some extent already.

Sumption went on to say that :

“I feel sad that we have the kind of laws which public-spirited people may need to break. I have always taken a line on this, which is probably different from that of most of my former colleagues. I do not believe that there is a moral obligation to obey the law… You have to have a high degree of respect, both for the object that the law is trying to achieve, and for the way that it’s been achieved. Some laws invite breach. I think this is one of them.”

I point these divergent views out, even amongst the judiciary because there is now a clear attempt to suggest that the powers of the jury are confined within the limits that a trial judge sets. There are many instances when, in order to achieve social change or achieve the abolition of a bad law, it was necessary to break the law.

Rosa Parks sitting in the bus

Rosa Parks by breaking the law on segregation helped change the law when she refused to give up her seat for a white man.

Hallett’s observations are the answer to those who say that a jury must blindly follow the law, or the Judges’ interpretation of the law. There are times when an oppressive law deserves to be broken. The Poll Tax was an obvious one. Let us not forget that hiding Anne Frank was against the law whereas deporting her was legal.

In June-July 1945, the London Conference preceded the Nuremberg trials of the major Nazi war criminals. The Conference created effectively a new law, Crimes Against Humanity. Under the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal. London, 8 August 1945

‘Individuals would be responsible for the perpetration of war crimes irrespective of ‘whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.’

This was the answer to the defence of Goering, Streicher & co. that they were only obeying orders.

The Suffragettes (dramatisation) | History - Tales from the Old Bailey

The suffragette’s breaking of the law in order to reform the law was another. They were told, by the prosecuting barrister in the BBC’s reconstruction of a trial that:

Suffrage is not the issue, it is the criminal behaviour of the suffragettes and their incitement to partake in militant activity at which 54 windows were broken