The right to protest is under serious threat
JVL Introduction
Sandra Laville reports in the Guardian on the decision to prosecute campaigner Trudi Warner, 68, for holding up a placard outside a court hearing, drawing jurors’ attention to their right to acquit defendants according to their consciences.
Warner is accused of contempt of court, attempting to “pervert the course of justice”.
We’re not sure what words would be appropriate to describe what the judge did in preventing defendants from mentioning any of their motivations in their defence – including climate change, insulation or fuel poverty.
Liberty, in measured campaigning language, finds this decision to prosecute “concerning”.
We think it is outrageous, a full-on assault on our basic civil liberties.
RK
This article was originally published by the Guardian on Tue 19 Sep 2023. Read the original here.
Fears over right to protest after woman with sign at climate trial prosecuted
Civil liberty campaigners have warned that the prosecution of a woman for holding up a placard about the rights of jurors outside a court is part of the government’s increasing attacks on the right to protest.
Liberty said the decision to prosecute Trudi Warner, 68, for contempt of court for sitting outside a London trial holding up a sign was “concerning”.
Sam Grant, advocacy director of Liberty, called on ministers to reverse the restrictions on protest which are contained in recent legislation – in the Policing Act and Public order Act – and commit to protecting the right to protest.
Grant said: “This decision is concerning – especially when seen in the wider context of increasing attacks on our right to protest. We all have the right to make our voices heard on issues that matter to us, but this government has continually narrowed our options for standing up for what we believe in.
“As well as limits on how we can protest, we are also seeing the erosion of available defences for protesters, which has led to a situation where juries are the last line of defence for people facing imprisonment for protesting.”
The decision to prosecute Warner was made by the government’s solicitor general, Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole.
It comes as police separately investigate at least 12 people on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice for holding up similar signs outside a London court.
Warner held up a sign outside Inner London crown court earlier this year spelling out the right of a jury to acquit a defendant on their conscience. She was referring to a famous sign in the Old Bailey celebrating the independence of jurors in the Bushel case in 1670, where a jury refused a judge’s direction to find defendants guilty.
Warner held up a sign in March outside Inner London crown court, where a climate trial was taking place, which read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
She was protesting over restrictions on the defendants, imposed by the judge, which prevented them from mentioning climate change, insulation, fuel poverty or their motivations in their defence.
Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court. Amy Pritchard and Giovanna Lewis, who were both jailed for seven weeks after they ignored the judge’s ruling not to mention climate change in their address to the jury, are appealing against their conviction for contempt of court.
Warner was committed to the Old Bailey for contempt of court proceedings, where a high court judge referred the case to Tomlinson, to decide whether to pursue contempt proceedings or charge her with attempting to pervert the course of justice. He wrote to Warner last Thursday to say he had decided to prosecute her for contempt of court.
As she faces a possible jail sentence, a separate investigation is ongoing into allegations of attempting to pervert the course of justice relating to at least 12 people who also stood outside Inner London crown court in May holding similar placards.
The 12 have received letters from the Metropolitan police’s specialist public order unit that state: “You have recently been identified as taking part in an incident outside the Inner London crown court … whereby you were seated outside of the court and held a placard with the words; ‘The right of juries – to give their verdict according to their convictions’, in a place where both witnesses and jurors attending trials … could not avoid seeing them.”
The letter went on: “This may amount to an offence under the common law of attempting to pervert the course of justice.”
Tim Crosland, a lawyer and one of those being investigated by the Met, said: “It’s surreal. On the one hand it’s terrifying because that is the situation in this country at the moment, and on the other hand I feel like we are revealing something truthful about the situation, the extreme repression that is happening in this country at the moment in relation to people holding the government to account … and the repression that is happening in courts around trials for people exposing the government’s lies and how desperate the state is to prevent a jury reaching not guilty verdicts in these climate cases.”
Scotland Yard said: “On Friday, 21 July the Met received an allegation of perverting the course of justice relating to activity outside of Inner London crown court on Monday 15 May. An investigation is being carried out; no arrests have been made.”
A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said: “Contempt of court is a serious matter and the power to issue proceedings is used sparingly. When investigating potential contempt issues, the law officers assess whether the evidential test for the specific form of contempt is met.
“In this case, the law officers considered the deliberate act of doing something that interferes or creates a real risk of interference with the administration of justice, and whether it is in the public interest to begin proceedings for contempt.
“We can confirm the solicitor general has determined to institute proceedings against Trudi Warner in the public interest, it will now be a matter for the court.”
Perhaps Sir Keir Starmer could give a legal opinion on this very serious case.
I certainly know what words are appropriate to describe the judge’s actions….. JURY TAMPERING. By not allowing the jury to hear all the evidence in these cases, the judge has abused his power and prevented the jury from hearing ALL the evidence. This is a disgrace and a prelude to a police state. Both the judge and Michael Thomlinson under laws of natural justice should be literally hounded out of office by the people. Would Starmer do anything about these injustices? As an agent of the State, like hell he would!
I wonder what our ex-human rights lawyer and leader of the Labour party has to say about this travesty of justice. Will it be a deathly silence or perhaps even an agreement with yet another Tory policy?
As someone who has just received a 9 month sentence, along with 3 other Palestine Action protestors, I would like to comment on this.
In our trial in Wolverhampton we were also unable to explain why we had carried out the actions we had and the background to Elbits war crimes.
I was warned after conviction that if I didn’t take down blogs I had written during the trial I would be immediately gaoled for contempt. Judge Chambers said:
“It has been brought to my attention Mr Greenstein has been running an open commentary as to what’s been happening in the trial on his blog.
“Had the jury not come back, I was going to consider whether his liberty should be maintained.
“Not only has he been running a log of what’s happened, including matters not in front of the jury, it’s also been inaccurate.
“He’s also been calling on jurors to return outcomes according to conscience. That’s a serious matter of contempt.
“It’s a serious contempt to invite jurors to return outcomes which are not in accordance with the facts, but in accordance with their conscience.
“He will remove all this material from the log and desist.
“He needs to understand that if he fails to do so he will be brought back here under a warrant and will be remanded in custody.” B& Hove News https://tinyurl.com/2p9mrnjy
There is no more important campaign today than the defence of the right to protest because it affects all campaigns. We have to defend Trudy Warner and all those under threat.
There are Pal Action and other trials of activists coming up. People need to be prepared to do what Trudy did in order to create a climate of opinion that will not tolerate the attack on our rights, not only from…
[cut to our limit of 300 words – admin]
My full support to these protesters
The extraordinary case of the eloquent radical Leveller, John Lilburne, was probably the first to establish in English law the de facto principle of jury nullification, by which juries have a right to deliver a verdict according to their conscience.
In 1649 Lilburne was charged with seditious libel for publishing articles severely critical of Oliver Cromwell’s régime. There is a beautiful account by the socialist Eduard Bernstein of Lilburne’s trial:
“His claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself …was described by an enraged judge as ‘damnable, blasphemous heresy’. This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days’ hearing, acquitted Lilburne—who had defended himself as skillfully as any lawyer could have done—to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.”
The lesson of how to treat the totalitarians who are trying to extinguish this ancient right seems clear enough: defiance and mass protests with everyone carrying placards bearing the same message as in the photo, …
[cut to our limit of 300 words – admin]
Jack T said
” Both the judge and Michael Thomlinson under laws of natural justice should be literally hounded out of office by the people. ”
Yes of course they should – for surely it contravenes the
third Nolan Principle of Public Life?
‘Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.’
Note ‘FAIRLY’ ..
I doubt if this Nolan Principle differentiates between “Natural Justice”
and what most people would regard as “fairness”..
I find that quite chilling! Hard to believe.
Sandra Lavelle’s article on the government’s decision to prosecute Trudi Warner for holding a placard, reminding jurors that they had the right to act according to their conscience before making a decision is another example of how the Tories want to emasculate juries. In light of recent acquittals of Palestine Action and Climate Change protestors, the government is trying to stack the deck against future defendants who engage in direct action.
Our abject apathy has enabled/empowered this venal gvt eg Even for NHS Bill No mass protests Unions silent Loach recently said we urgently need an “organized resistance” Where/from whom is it going to come? These court prosecutions- tip of sinister iceberg We must not just sit back WE need to RISE UP asap