When Roger Hallam and other supporters of Beyond Politics / Burning Pink threw pink paint at the front entrance of Greenpeace’s UK headquarters in July 2020, Will McCallum was the manager of the Oceans team at the NGO. He is now Greenpeace’s co-executive director, and he took time out to appear as a defence witness on Friday at the conspiracy trial of 12 activists at Wood Green Crown Court.
He told the jury that he remembered the action and was present at the building that day but did not intervene because Greenpeace, perhaps more than any other organisation, respects the right to peaceful protest, including putting up with things they may not have done themselves.
Hallam asked him about the damage and the clean-up, and he said it was minor and trivial.
Prosecution barrister Diane Wilson asked McCallum about the cost. Although much larger figures had been given as evidence by prosecution witnesses earlier in the trial, McCallum said that invoices covered a total which included some other work, and that the actual damage cost was estimated to be around £700.
A large part of the defence in this Burning Pink trial is based around whether the defendants believed that the owners of buildings affected may have given their consent to the peaceful direct action protests had they known all the circumstances at the time. She asked McCallum whether in 2020 Greenpeace was aware of the climate emergency, to which he replied that the organisation was of course aware, but that it wasn’t using that language in its communications.
She inquired: if Hallam had asked beforehand whether it was OK to throw paint, would McCallum have said yes? He replied simply that Hallam hadn’t asked, so therefore he would struggle to answer this.
Pushing more, she asked if he would consent if asked by Hallam now. McCallum said that it’s in the interest of democracy to allow peaceful protest, and that trying to prevent it never goes well because it can often escalate, so always best to let it go ahead.
The prosecutor said “so your evidence today is that you’d invite anyone to throw paint at your building?” McCallum responded “You could take it like that, yes”.
Speaking later to Real Media McCallum said that of course Greenpeace supported peaceful direct action protest – there are currently four activists occupying a giant Shell oil platform in the North Sea! He was also angry that so much court time is wasted on protest trials – he’s been waiting three years already for a trial and some justice over an assault, and is appalled that five weeks of court time is being taken over a legitimate protest and some water-based paint.
One of the other courts in the building is hearing a case against people who are alleged to have manufactured guns – this has taken more than two years to be listed. Why is so much court time and energy being wasted on trying to curtail protest rather than addressing the issues people are protesting about?
Valerie Brown also gave evidence on Friday. She was the mayoral candidate representing Burning Pink in the 2021 election. She spoke about the group’s one campaign policy – to hand over all power to Citizen’s Assemblies – and her efforts to canvass votes despite coronavirus restrictions and very little money.
Valerie, a 70 year old grandmother, talked about her earlier years observing how huge charities work in Africa. She was worried that they were like corporations – saving the world had become big business. Worried that the same is happening in the climate sector, she hoped that direct actions against some key NGOs would act like a wake-up call and begin a conversation about how better to represent their supporters and the people they were supposed to be helping. She described how when a friend falls out with her, she asks herself what she might have done wrong – in the same way, she hoped the NGOs would ask themselves why climate activists were angry, and may be triggered into dialogue and change. She maintained under cross-examination that her main role in the group was the political side. Asked whether, failing to attract votes she was merely trying to force her opinions on others, she reminded the court that the policy of Citizen’s Assemblies is the very opposite – handing over power to ordinary people, not forcing opinions at all.
She handed herself in along with Hallam and others after the actions at NGOs including Greenpeace. The jury was shown a conversation they filmed after being released from custody, in which they spoke about their action and the reasoning behind it.
During the coming days, the jury will hear closing statements from barristers for the prosecution and defence, as well as from the four activists who are representing themselves. They will also hear directions from the judge. In protest cases it’s common now for judges to direct that there are very limited or even no defences available in law. [An amendment in the upcoming Public Order Bill seeks to rule out any Article 10 or 11 human rights ‘reasonable defence’ altogether. The Lords voted down this amendment last week, but a recent Attorney General ruling relating to the Colston Four, still severely limits any convention rights.]
Depending on how long the jury takes to reach a verdict, there is a reasonable chance we will hear this week. The maximum penalty for Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Damage is 10 years imprisonment.
