This nearly three-week trial took place at Southwark Crown Court where Judge Christopher Hehir presided over a courtroom awash with cognitive dissonance. The five defendants were charged with Conspiracy to Cause Public Nuisance, arising from a Zoom call. Their meeting had been infiltrated by Sun reporter Scarlet Howes – who was then invited by police to witness the arrest of the Extinction Rebellion co-founder and civil resistance strategist Roger Hallam.
Almost the whole of the first week was handed over to the prosecution to present their evidence. It centred around the illicit recording of the Zoom meeting – a recruitment exercise in which a plan to disrupt the M25 was outlined and people were invited along to further training. Subsequent raids on the eve of the action uncovered additional evidence – receipts for climbing equipment, booking arrangements for ‘safe house’ rentals, seized phones giving up details of communications and so on. For dozens of hours, the court heard every detail about the arrests and subsequent investigation, as well as evidence of the extent of the ensuing motorway disruption which included ‘estimates’ down to the last penny of how much it had cost police forces and other emergency services. In total, the economic cost of the four days of disruption was put at a little over three quarters of a million pounds.
Monday July 1st – Protest over ‘the whole truth’, and legal arguments
At the start of the second week, July 1st, before the court sat, a handful of supporters of Defend Our Juries held a silent vigil outside, displaying banners which read “Jurors deserve to hear the whole truth”. In the courtroom Judge Hehir ordered their arrest and described them as ‘mob-handed’ and ‘troublemakers’, but by the time police had arrived, they had left. He told the jury he believed they were targeting this case, and that their placards were misleading.
Defendants Roger Hallam, Louise Lancaster and Cressida Gethin wanted to cross-examine Detective Inspector Rudd. Hallam asked him if the police had a duty to investigate if there was an objective physical threat to those arrested. He responded that he was not aware of any. Gethin asked whether he was aware of a dossier delivered to police by Just Stop Oil before the action, alleging corporate and government negligence in the face of climate science, and whether they had actioned any investigation on the basis of it. Lancaster inquired whether there had been any police consideration of the Sun journalist’s motives.
Their cross-examination was continually interrupted and closed down by Judge Hehir.
Sending the jury out of the court, Hehir then delivered a lecture citing Lord Hoffman as what he described as the ‘lodestar’ authority – the House of Lords appeal in the case of R v Jones, where in paragraph 94 Hoffman infamously ruled (18 years ago) that the reasonableness of a defendant’s acts “must be considered in the context of a functioning state” where courts decide law, and government policy can be challenged democratically. Therefore, Hoffman concludes, “evidence to support the opinions of the protesters as to the legality of the acts in question is irrelevant and inadmissible.”
The five on trial had worked hard to assemble an evidence bundle (around 250 pages) comprising 29 documents. This included some of the best available science outlining the overwhelming threat to humanity from carbon emissions, the Treasury’s own analysis and its resulting Net Zero Strategy, with statements from the UN Secretary-General, the government’s own scientific adviser, and the former Secretary for the Environment (who declared that Just Stop Oil “ought to make themselves a nuisance in every circumstance they can, because we have to act now”).
Other documents show evidence of fossil fuel companies’ knowledge and concealment of climate impact, and their role in the funding of a think-tank which helped shape new anti-protest laws.
As the prosecution evidence had come in part from a Sun reporter, there was also a profile of Rupert Murdoch, mentioning his financial interests which include a stake in Genie Energy (exploring in the illegally-occupied Golan Heights).
Several of the documents also demonstrated the effectiveness of civil resistance, citing examples that Parliament declared a climate emergency soon after Extinction Rebellion actions, that Serbian authorities stopped a huge mining project after motorway blockades, and that Dutch lawmakers agreed a massive reduction in fuel subsidies after highway blockades there.
Challenging the idea that we live in a functioning democratic state, the bundle included evidence that the government has recently received court rulings that their climate policies were unlawful, but there is no actual mechanism to hold them to account. These rulings come 18 years after Lord Hoffman’s pronouncements, 14 of which have been under a regime mired in corruption, scandal, theft and incompetence.
Finally, there was a section outlining the legal power for a jury to acquit on their conscience known as “jury nullification”. Please read (and share) previous Real Media coverage of the background to the campaign to ensure juries are aware of this power.
Continuing their submissions to be able to defend themselves, Louise argued it was a complex case and they should be given the same time to explain their motivation as the prosecution had been given, due to the gravity of the issues, and the implications for environmental defenders.
Defendant Daniel Shaw made the case that the Jones ruling was about opinion and belief, but that their defence was about the actual objective harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. He reasoned that this was not what Lord Hoffman intended, because they were demonstrating objective harm, not opinion or belief. The judge maintained the prohibition was established in law, and that there was no legal argument available along the lines they’d acted for the greater good to prevent the world “coming to a fiery end”. Roger declared that if the judge was saying that the world coming to a fiery end had no relevance to a British court, then that would be “incoherent and immoral”.
Four of the five defendants were self-representing. The fifth, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, was represented by Raj Chada. He asked Judge Hehir to rule on admissibility at the end of the case rather than before the defence had been able to speak, as they should be able to present evidence to show they had ‘reasonable belief’ and that their intention was to prevent harm. He argued that we’re not dealing with a fringe view, but one based on authored scientific opinion. In response Hehir ruled that each defendant would be able to speak briefly about their motivations, but not refer to any of their proposed bundle as this would constitute hearsay.
As the defendants wanted to raise further issues, Judge Hehir sent the jury home after lunch to enable further submissions.
Daniel Shaw made a submission to stay the indictment as an abuse of process, on the basis of an intervention by UN Special Rapporteur Michel Forst, who had raised concerns in particular to the sentencing of Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker. Trowland and Decker had climbed the Queen Elizabeth M25 Dartford Crossing in October 2022. Mr. Forst has yet to receive a substantive response from the UK government, a signatory to the Aarhus Convention which offers environmental defenders a degree of protection from excessive persecution. Because Forst was likely to refer the matter to the Aarhus Compliance Committee, continuation of this trial in the meantime may fall foul of international law.
Hehir dismissed this submission, ruling that he was only bound by UK law and that the UN had no authority in his court.
Hallam proposed that, as the UN is suggesting it’s a criminal activity to ignore greenhouse gas emissions, then the UK court should be open to a ‘necessity’ defence, and that Hehir was using opinion and arbitrary judgment to silence him.
Louise Lancaster brought up the Human Rights Act, and said that the only reason she would consider doing anything remotely of this nature was because she believed her rights to life and enjoyment of family life (Articles 2 and 8) were being violated, and she had a right to self-defence and to a fair trial.
Hehir ruled that the right to ‘self-defence’ as not engaged, because the ‘agreement’ of which they were accused was not in itself an act of ‘force or violence’, so didn’t qualify.
The last submission was from Ms Gethin, that Judge Hehir should recuse himself due to bias. In response Hehir quoted Magill v Porter, a 2001 case which established the test whether a “fair minded and informed observer” considering the facts, would conclude there was a “real possibility of bias”.
Roger Hallam asked for just three minutes to offer further comment on this. He referenced the Great Fire Of London, when people pulled down houses to stop the spread. No-one suggested that that was a political act or an opinion – it was a ‘necessity’. But had there been a campaign previously to pull down houses in case of fire, then that might be political. So the immediacy of a threat, and the extent of a threat ARE a matter of subjective decision, and at this moment in time, a fair-minded person considering all the scientific evidence (the ‘whole truth’) might well consider that Judge Hehir’s withdrawal of the defence of necessity is subjective and biased.
Unswayed, Hehir declined to recuse himself. Hallam requested six hours to present his ‘evidence-in-chief’, and the judge didn’t set a limit but said Hallam would not need much time and would not be allowed to go through the proposed defence bundle of documents.
Tuesday 2nd – Arrests outside and inside court
On Tuesday morning outside the court, unfazed by the threat of arrest, 12 people sat silently, most with banners that read “Jurors deserve to hear the whole truth”, others with versions of Trudi Warner’s historic placard, and one holding a blank card. Over a period of nearly an hour, various police vans came and went, and eventually around 20 officers moved in and arrested 11, leaving the blank placard bearer alone.
In the court, Hehir remanded them all to the court cells for the rest of the day for alleged “Contempt in the face of the court”, but also told prosecutor Ms Jocelyn Ledward that he had “no concerns for the jury” over the incident.
Roger Hallam was sworn in to give his evidence and was taken through some questions by Judge Hehir, in which he stated he had attended the Zoom meeting as an advisor, had given hundreds of similar speeches, believed the action should go ahead, but was not part of the alleged agreement in terms of details.
He spoke about his Methodist upbringing, his early community work and then successful organic farming business in Wales. That business was ruined by major changes in weather patterns (which have devastated millions of farmers around the world, and left just 5 organic growers in Wales). He then moved into academia, first for a Masters Degree in Politics, and then years of research at Kings College London, where his campaign to end their financial investment in fossil fuels succeeded, and he was later acquitted by unanimous verdict on charges of criminal damage, despite organising the painting of their main entrance hall – (see Real Media’s coverage).
Then began a series of interruptions by the judge, wanting Hallam to address the narrow matter of the Zoom call and his part in it. Roger explained he wanted to show he was a reasonably intelligent and moral person who didn’t just go round instructing people to cause disruption without context and good reason. He returned to his assertion that he had given hundreds of similar speeches before and had not been arrested for encouraging people to take action. He said the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was actually part of a conspiracy, and suggested that they hadn’t done so. He also pointed out that the Sun newspaper wanted a story and had been given exclusive access to observe and photograph the arrest (of the man David Attenborough had recently described as ‘the greatest environmentalist’).
They also had to prove that the disruption plan was intending to cause public nuisance without reasonable excuse. Again Judge Hehir started interrupting, and Hallam countered that the jury were not being given all the facts and evidence. Roger began reading out the law – “it’s a defence for a person to show they have a reasonable excuse.” The judge called Hallam’s evidence to an end and asked the prosecution if they had any questions, and Roger said he hadn’t finished giving his evidence.
At that point the Judge sent the jury out and warned Hallam that his behaviour was becoming close to contempt.
As the jury returned, Roger said that protest could take the form of non-disruptive action, or disruptive action with no excuse, or disruptive action with reasonable excuse. He said the judge had no right to stop him giving the jury the WHOLE truth – real objective facts on mass deaths, and undeniable objective evidence they need to hear.
The jury was ordered out a second time, and Mr Hehir angrily warned Hallam again that he was in contempt and he had no right to “harangue” the jury with his views on climate or “whatever it is”. Hallam was told he must now submit to cross-examination, and the jury were ushered in once more.
Hallam calmly continued to speak about the reality of the effect of carbon emissions and quoted legislation asking “were the defendant’s actions designed to prevent harm”.
Yet again the jury were removed, and Judge Hehir left the court.
Roger turned to the members of the press and said “The judge has given no good reason why I can’t defend myself – that I am trying to prevent massive harm to the people of this country. I am staying in this dock until I am given the right to complete my defence – the Judge has no right to prevent this.”
After a few minutes Hehir returned to court and asked the prosecution for their submissions on Hallam’s conduct. They reminded the judge of his obligations towards defendants representing themselves and suggested “a degree of latitude”, and suggested Hehir allow him to continue speaking from the witness box.
When the jury had shuffled in yet again, Roger spoke about the legal concept of “equality of arms” – that the defence had had a right to lay facts over a whole week, and he wanted an equal opportunity. He spoke of various cases where juries had acquitted defendants when they heard the facts. The Dutch Supreme Court had said that all governments have a legal obligation to prevent emission of greenhouse gases. He said that the prosecution had accepted that emissions pose an existential threat – an acceptance that we face the death of humans. Given the objectivity of existential threat, there were overwhelming grounds to be involved in a plan to cause some disruption to the M25.
He said that when the law on public nuisance was brought in, there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ clause. Science says there is an overwhelming threat to my life, my children, you and your children. To argue there is not a reasonable excuse directly defies the wish of this legislation. Things are happening that cause harm – people are engaged in physical acts to stop that harm – it doesn’t matter whether it’s a protest or not.
As Roger began to offer up some case law, the judge kept intervening telling him he was wasting his time and ordering the jury to disregard him. To illustrate that he was not talking about his motivations but speaking about real necessity, Roger referred to a famous case over a decision to operate on conjoined twins with the likelihood that one would die. In this dilemma, a 19th Century principle was quoted, that the action was necessary if the threat faced was inevitable and irrevocable, that no more should be done than essential, and that it must be proportionate. Arguing that there was a “duress of circumstances”, Hallam spoke about the objective danger he’d experienced as a farmer unable to grow food, and the global significance of “food insecurity” – a euphemism for famine and starvation.
Hallam claimed there had never been a moment in history where ‘necessity’ had been more supported by objective facts – more than 10,000 scientific and peer-reviewed papers, indicating an outcome of mass starvation and death from man-made climate collapse.
Judge Hehir called an early lunch and dismissed the jury, then turning to Hallam and making comments about him not being a lawyer, along with personal remarks – “you hold quite a high opinion of yourself”, and “this is not the Roger Hallam show”.
After lunch Hallam told the judge he would need a few more hours for his defence, and when the jury returned he gave another example of necessity – snatching someone from in front of the path of a lorry – this conduct (otherwise a form of assault) would be completely justified, but only if you don’t look at it independently of the objective thing it was trying to prevent.
In response to a further intervention from the judge, giving him just 15 minutes to put forward his “beliefs”, Hallam said that position was incoherent, and that he wasn’t trying to show his motivations – his background, beliefs and motivations were irrelevant to the objective threat of destruction of property and livelihoods of billions of people and the secondary effects of famine i.e. war, rape, torture.
Hallam outlined four characteristics of the effects of emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere, describing them as easy to understand, but unique to human experience and so horrific that they are impossible to assimilate.
First, they have universal effects – what’s emitted in India affects the USA, a melting Arctic affects Argentina and so on.
Second, the ultimate consequence of GHGs in the atmosphere is that you destroy the basis of life – some experts say for 100,000 years, others 50 million, and some say the Earth will simply become like Venus. In other words, for the first time in human history a group of people are responsible for destroying everything for ever.
Third, the Earth has reached the 1.5˚ rise in temperature already and at some point in the next decade we’ll have triggered geological tipping points – regardless of any action then, we’ll have started unstoppable change. In other words, we don’t have time to not pull that person from in front of the lorry, if we don’t act now it will be too late. Some scientists contend it’s already too late – the UN has said we have two years in which to make radical changes – so we’re not just trying to stop people from doing bad things, but to prevent them doing bad things which will create badness for ever.
Fourth, with a not insubstantial possibility of entire human extinction as a result of pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, we’re talking about a crime fundamentally different from any other in history. This, Hallam said, is why he wants to be able to show the jury expert evidence.
The judge, showing obvious disinterest, tells Hallam to wrap up in a few minutes.
Returning to the idea of ‘necessity’, Roger gives more examples. We agree if a man pulls a dagger out in a pub, if someone pushes him and disarms him there would be no question of prosecution. In Ireland, a cyclist who stopped and intervened when an immigrant was being attacked became a national hero. But what if someone plants a bomb under the table in a pub, set to explode in 30 minutes? If you push him over, grab the bomb and take it out to the police, you wouldn’t be prosecuted, even though the harm you’re trying to prevent is in the future. And what about those people pulling down houses in the Great Fire Of London. Their action was to try and prevent harm in other parts of London if the fire had spread. So just because something causes damage over a long time or space is irrelevant – it comes down to causality. The fact that emissions will cause damage across the planet for millions of years is not a reason to stop it coming into court. In fact, the massive extent of the time and space is the very reason it should be in every court.
At this point, Hehir sent the jury out and home, and again scoffed at Hallam, who remember was a litigant-in-person, telling him he was an “amateur lawyer” getting “amateur results”.
The 11 placard-bearers were then brought in batches to the dock, having been held in cells all day. Hehir told them that he believed they had tried to interfere with the course of justice. Referring to Trudi Warner’s case (which didn’t go to full trial because it was thrown out by the High Court describing it as ‘fanciful’), he said that in his view today’s action was of a completely different order, and he imposed court bail banning them from the vicinity of the court, to appear before him on 27th September.
Wednesday 3rd July – The Whole Truth
Despite the arrests on Tuesday, several placard-holders sat quietly outside the court again, but police did not intervene.
Lucia Whittaker De Abreu (represented by Raj Chada) was not in court, as she was in bad health.
Before the jury was allowed in there was some discussion about revealing Hallam’s previous convictions – because he had mentioned previous acquittals yesterday, the prosecution had gained the right to mention guilty verdicts. Judge Hehir agreed, and then told Hallam he had been given a lot of ‘latitude’ yesterday and his ‘evidence-in-chief’ was at an end and he would be subject to cross-examination this morning.
Once the jury were in, Roger announced he was under oath to tell the whole truth and would continue with his evidence. The judge immediately ordered the jury out, and when Hallam continued to declare he under an obligation to continue, the public gallery was cleared and Hallam was warned he would be arrested if he didn’t return to his seat.
After some time, Serco staff and three police officers arrived. Roger told them he would not resist, but would not assist in his arrest. As they man-handled him towards the prisoner dock he announced to the three journalists in attendance that this was “Democracy in action”. Once in the dock, he co-operated with court staff who accompanied him to the cells.
There was then some legal exchange between the judge and the prosecution about Roger’s status, and it was agreed he had temporarily “waived his right to be present”, and the jury were summoned to hear Daniel Shaw’s evidence, but no comment was made to them about Roger’s absence from the court.
The judge asked Daniel about his part in any conspiracy, and he replied that he was a supporter of JSO, and he was aware of a planned action, but that it was reasonable under the circumstances, not a criminal conspiracy. Given just 15 minutes to present his evidence, Shaw began by addressing Lord Hoffman’s observation that courts had become an extension of protest in which to expound political beliefs, by asserting he would be giving facts and evidence, not a lecture.
He began by saying he took part in the action in order to try and prevent climate breakdown, and that this was not a belief, but a genuine reasonable excuse. He spoke about his past work in social care with very vulnerable adults, his respect for procedure and process and his enhanced DBS certificate, all pointing to the fact that the M25 action was something he would only contemplate if it had a very strong rationale and moral basis.
Daniel described how in February 2019 he had some time off work, went for a walk in the park and found himself among sunbathers on a boiling hot afternoon. This set him on a course to find out more about climate change, and he discovered so many scientists were talking about large areas of the world becoming unable to support functional society, and hence mass migration and civilisational collapse. At first he canvassed for the Green Party and increased his FoE (Friends of the Earth) donations, but realised this simply wasn’t enough. Disrupting and controversial movements like JSO create media coverage, public discussion and rapid policy change. People don’t like the protesters, but they agree with the issues. The Suffragettes are generally well thought of today, but they were vilified at the time. For throwing bricks through windows, burning down post-boxes and buildings, and cutting down communication lines, they were attacked by mobs and told they were putting people off the cause, but should they have stopped?
Judge Hehir interjected and told Shaw his time was up, but Daniel moved on to the example of Martin Luther King and started to speak about the fight for civil rights in the 1960s. The judge tried to move on to cross-examination, but both Louise Lancaster and Cressida Gethin said they couldn’t cross-examine Daniel yet as he hadn’t been able to finish his evidence.
An agitated Hehir told the prosecution to cross-examine, and Shaw replied he’d be happy to answer questions once he’d been given a little more time to conclude. Cressida stood and asked why Daniel was only allowed 15 minutes, when Hallam had had a few hours yesterday. Fast losing control again, Hehir tried to push the prosecution to continue, but Shaw began to quote from the first document in the proposed evidence bundle for the jury – an expert witness testimony from Professor Bill McGuire (Prof Emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at UCL), “continuing business as usual will decimate the human population…”
Yet again, Judge Hehir ejected the jury. At that point, even the prosecution suggested that Shaw should be given some leeway, saying they were concerned from the jury’s perspective, that he’d only been allowed 15 minutes and that he wasn’t lecturing them. The judge asked Daniel how long he wanted, and he said, just a couple of hours. Shaw said he couldn’t NOT give the evidence of existential threat as part of his truthful evidence. Hehir responded that it was not the judge’s job to be interested in ‘political or moral questions’, and ordered him to submit to cross-examination.
The jury re-entered but had hardly settled before Daniel again asked to be able to submit evidence of a real existential threat. Out went the jury again, and Hehir told Shaw that he had waived his right to give any further evidence and would be arrested if he didn’t leave the witness box.
The public gallery was cleared, police were called, and again he had to be carried to the dock.
When the judge returned he gave a little speech about Lord Hoffman’s ruling, characterising the attempt to give evidence as simply continuation of protest inside the courtroom.
Once again, the prosecution showed some concern, and brought up discussions they’d had with the defendants about the possibility of some Agreed Facts on the science. They said that there was some relevance to the issue of ‘proximity’ (‘necessity’ as a defence requires the potential harm to be near in time and space). Hehir showed disdain, saying he couldn’t see how that evidence relates to what the jury must decide. The prosecutors also showed concern over the current status and exclusion of Hallam and Shaw, and the judge agreed to readmit them on bail. They also asked the judge to give the remaining self-representing defendants a clear idea of how long they could have, so that they could prepare. Louise said she would like just one hour, but now Judge Hehir (despite the case being easily on track) shrunk the remaining two speeches to 15 minutes each.
Raj Chada said he believed Lucia would be able to attend court in the morning to give evidence next.
After lunch, the jury returned to be told by Hehir that they would not be required any more for the day, but that the case was “well on track” with regard to timing. There followed further submissions about admissibility of evidence, and once again even the prosecution were concerned. They proposed that if some facts were agreed, the defendants would have a foundation for their evidence. The judge said that the Crown can’t argue the reality of climate change and shouldn’t, and that the defendants’ “views” and motivations have nothing to do with whether a defence is available. The prosecution, sounding more and more like defence barristers, said that the level and degree of climate breakdown may have some bearing on necessity, and Mr Chada pointed out that the facts in dispute include international law and the government’s own documents. The judge referred again to Jones and Thacker as his guides, and told Ms Lancaster she would have around 20 minutes for evidence the next day.
Thursday 4th July – Hehir’s bizarre ‘tweetfest’, the UN Observer and the ‘Four Facts’
Outside the court a few people sat again with banners as part of the Defend Our Juries campaign, and the UN Special Rapporteur Michel Forst posed for a photograph with the five defendants before entering the court with his assistant to observe proceedings.
The judge began the morning with a frankly bizarre reading aloud of Roger Hallam’s Twitter feed, beginning with a couple of Roger’s own tweets, alerting followers to the fact he wasn’t allowed to give his whole defence, and calling for support for the Defend Our Juries presence, but then moving on to gleefully recounting some of the various trolls – quite why this was any part of a serious trial, no-one could fathom. He also called out a plea for help with fees, calling it fraudulent, and singled out a tweet of support from Bill McGuire, which he said proved that the Emeritus Geophysics Professor was no independent expert witness. He was also troubled by other tweets he claimed Hallam may have had a hand in. He ordered some be taken down by lunchtime because they were inciting contempt of court.
Finally moving on to the business of the day, Hehir heard from Mr Chada that Lucia was still unwell and would not be giving evidence. The judge asked Louise Lancaster if she was ready to give her evidence and warned her he would give her just 20 minutes to speak.
Possibly because UN representative Michel Forst was sitting in the court (whom the judge warmly welcomed), Hehir made the surprise announcement that he WOULD allow the Facts Not In Dispute to be read out to the jury. These four powerful paragraphs were the subject of much discussion between the defendants and prosecutors, and starkly reveal the threat humanity faces and the imminence of that threat in the face of continuing emissions and fossil fuel extraction.
The jury were brought in, and the judge confirmed that this document was now evidence in the trial.
Judge Hehir told the jury that Lucia had elected not to give evidence and that they could make some inference from that decision.
Just before Louise was called to give evidence, Roger stood up and told the jury that after they’d been ejected yesterday, he had been arrested and removed, but that they had a right to hear his evidence about the four facts that had just been disclosed.
Once again, Hehir ordered the jury and the public gallery out, although he did allow Michel Forst to remain to witness the forced removal of the passive defendant Hallam.
Telling the court that Hallam had now waived his right to be present, Hehir had the jury brought in and asked Ms Lancaster to proceed with her evidence-in-chief from the witness box. He took her through a series of questions relating to the prosecution’s case about her part in a conspiracy. She had been in the Zoom call, had booked a room for activists to stay in, and had purchased some climbing equipment. Her answers didn’t seek to challenge this evidence. Once her allotted 20 minutes began, she spoke briefly about her family life and young adult children. The judge ordered the jury out and warned her that if she tried to portray ‘good character’, the prosecution would have a right to tell the jury about previous convictions – in response, Louise said that she might tell them herself.
When the jury returned, Louise began by acknowledging the enormous significance of this morning’s decision to let the jury see four agreed facts – empirical evidence of what we’re dealing with, previously concealed from this and other juries. She told the jury that they were still being prevented from seeing an entire bundle of clear evidence of the immediacy and extent of the emergency, and that 20 minutes was not nearly enough for her to speak about it, and a violation of her human rights.
Louise described herself as an ordinary person, that she hadn’t acted on ‘beliefs’ or ‘political opinions’ but had reacted to what she had learned, truly believed that the M25 action was proportionate and designed to prevent a much greater harm, and wouldn’t have been excusable if that harm wasn’t being concealed and ignored.
She said that she had intended to present her evidence in five strands:
1 evidence of the crisis itself
2 who or what is making it worse
3 the vested interests behind it
4 why non-violent direct action is effective and necessary
5 her own responsibilities and the jury’s responsibilities,
but that now she would have to try and pick out some important points.
First, Louise wanted to address the tone of the Zoom meeting, which might appear to disregard the potential effect on the public. It was designed, she said, for people already involved in taking non-violent direct action, steeped in respect, understanding, compassion and the dilemma of a confrontational non-violent edge. They truly care about others and would always apologise for disruption. But, they had all taken democratic approaches and could see they were not working.
The M25 action, Louise said, was a time-limited event targeting a major symbol of fossil-fuel infrastructure around London. Transport accounts for 30% of UK emissions, and the action was aimed at the government not the public, and designed to create maximum global coverage to shine a light, change policy and ultimately protect life.
The government’s own Net Zero Strategy published a year before the action stated:
People are rightly concerned, with the latest IPCC report showing that if we fail to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the floods and fires we have seen around the world this year will get more frequent and more fierce, crops will be more likely to fail, and sea levels will rise driving mass migration as millions are forced from their homes. Above 1.5°C we risk reaching climatic tipping points like the melting of arctic permafrost – releasing millennia of stored greenhouse gases – meaning we could lose control of our climate for good.”
And yet the government’s action plan has been found to be unlawful – somehow though, despite the unimaginable consequences of that, the politicians responsible are not held to account – so why are we accountable? The former Minister For Energy, Chris Skidmore OBE, resigned in disgust when Rishi Sunak granted a swathe of new exploration licences, saying the legislation was wrong.
Louise started speaking about her third strand, likening the fossil fuel industry to the tobacco industry, using the same methods of concealment, even the same PR companies, all catalogued in the bundle the jury would not see. Judge Hehir told her she had just two minutes available. She outlined the knowledge companies like Exxon Mobil had decades ago, and also referred to evidence that they funded the think-tanks that helped shape recent draconian anti-protest laws.
Hehir jumped up and called a ten minute break.
On his return, and before the jury entered, Hehir warned Daniel (who had held up the evidence bundle when Louise spoke about it) that he would not allow “visual props” and he must remove the dossier from the courtroom. He also warned both Daniel and Cressida that they mustn’t cross-examine Louise on any matters of climate. Cressida questioned why they couldn’t ask her about something she had already spoken about, and the judge quoted from the Jones judgment that “you cannot give any evidence to suggest that you believed that what you did was legal”.
Once the jury had settled in, Ms Lancaster announced that she would not submit to cross-examination until she had given her evidence. Judge Hehir told her she would have another chance to address the jury in a closing speech, but she said that she wanted to present evidence now that she would then be allowed to refer to in that closing statement. Yet again the judge ordered the jury out, and as they left Shaw called out “Why aren’t they trying the people causing this crisis? It’s a valid question”. The judge ordered him to go to the dock, but Daniel refused, again asking the judge why he wasn’t trying the people responsible.
Hehir asked Lancaster to leave the witness box and left the room after ordering Shaw’s arrest. Once again, police arrive and carry a limp body to the dock.
The judge returns to declare that Shaw has now forfeited his right to be present, and then rises for lunch.
When the court resumes, Louise has taken up position in the witness box, and although she is supposed to be cross-examined by Ms Gethin when the jury return, she starts telling them that Rupert Murdoch is on the board of Genie Energy, and seeks to influence the public through his media ownership. Hehir ejects the jury once more.
Seeking submission from the prosecution, the judge says he is minded to end Lancaster’s evidence. They indicate they don’t propose to challenge this, so he asks her to leave the witness box. Louise maintains that she has not been given the chance to finish her evidence and the judge again clears the court and orders that she be moved to the dock by police.
When he returns, the judge announces that he has been pondering the issue of proceedings against yesterday’s placard protesters. He says that he wonders whether vulnerable people have been ‘conned’ into coming to the court by Roger Hallam, and he wants time to reflect on whether to pursue a contempt indictment. Mr Chada says that for practical issues around representation he still needs confirmation that they were actually arrested.
Before the jury re-enter, Cressida Gethin tells the judge she will need longer than 20 minutes for her evidence. The judge condescendingly tells her she need not do what others have told her to as she’s seen what happens.
Once they have assembled, Hehir tells the jury that Louise Lancaster was not prepared to subject to cross-examination and so her evidence is at an end.
He then takes Cressida through some opening questions asking about her relationship with JSO and the extent of her involvement in planning and taking part in the action. She says she has taken part in previous protests, that there must have been planning to ensure safety and it would be disingenuous to suggest she wasn’t about to try and climb a gantry, but that the jury must decide on the evidence. In her allotted 20 minutes of truth, she packed a lot in…
Brought up in a Welsh village, she didn’t take a lot of notice of the wider world, but was taught by her parents to work hard and always think of others. While revising in 2019, she saw school marchers for climate pass by her window – a seed which later started to grow when she went to a public talk two years later at university where she heard a quote from Sir David King (the former government scientific adviser) that what we do in the next three to four years will determine the future of humanity. The idea of studying hard, getting a good job, and trying to change things from the inside was shattered by this top level expert telling her that by the time she finished her Bachelor degree, mankind’s fate might be sealed.
This set her on the path of civil resistance and her attempt to do her best to prevent catastrophic harm. She said she had a reasonable excuse to do something otherwise unlawful because according to the best available scientific evidence there’s an overwhelming threat, the UK government is knowingly amplifying that threat, the fossil fuel industry is concealing that truth, and social science shows that direct action is the best, possibly only, way to make major changes quickly.
Reminding the jury of their absolute power to acquit on her evidence, she spoke about the thousands of scientific papers and would pick just a few examples of what they were saying.
By 2050, the world’s population is expected to rise by 2 billion, but climate change will bring crop yields down by 30% – the result is mass starvation and desperate people turning against each other. And this very legal system is telling us that the government is failing to protect us – its policies have been found unlawful twice in the High Court, and during those two years of legal argument, there have been increasing emissions, rising global temperatures, and no effective change.
This is why Cressida, who is just 22 years old, gave up the path of becoming a lawyer and telling the government they are acting unlawfully. Nothing will change that way and meanwhile 127 former fossil fuel employees have parachuted into government roles. She told the jury that during 2022, Offshore Energies UK (made up of companies like Shell, BP and Equinor) met with government almost once every day. The bundle of evidence the judge has concealed from the jury contains all of this information and more.
At that point Judge Hehir intervened to order Cressida not to mention the bundle any more.
She moved on to give examples of how non-violent direct action gets results. By creating non-violent confrontational tension, the violence of government is exposed. It happened in the civil rights movement. And here in the UK what could be more violent than a government pursuing for personal profit, policies which they know will kill people? In Serbia, thousands of people blockaded motorways and bridges to stop a huge mining operation, and just a few weeks later it was suspended. People ask why not target the fossil fuel companies, but the Serbian example shows that by creating public disruption, it shines a spotlight on the issue, and THAT is why there is a nexus and why Cressida took part in an action that had the simple aim of stopping new fossil fuel exploration licences in the North Sea.
Another document in the ‘irrelevant’ bundle was research by Social Change Lab which showed that following the motorway action, support and donations for Friends Of The Earth grew. In other words, radical action also increased support for more moderate flanks – far from the notion that it puts people off the cause.
Cressida returned to the jury’s power of acquittal, and Judge Hehir stopped her by calling for a short afternoon break and sending the jury out, after which he warned her again not to “misrepresent the law”.
After the break, and returning to the power of civil disobedience, Cressida Gethin reminded the court that not just in Serbia but in the UK, there was a recent example. The days of central London disruption by Extinction Rebellion were followed just two weeks later by the government announcing a ‘declaration of climate and ecological emergency’ – the first in the world and a massive shift in position (although yet to be matched by real action).
Returning to the power to acquit, Cressida referred to the plaque in the Old Bailey. She said the jury must listen to all the evidence and the law, but it’s been upheld in the High Court recently that they have the final say and if all legal defences are ruled out, it’s important to know this. A famous example of this power was the Clive Ponting case, where a civil servant leaked information that during the Falklands War, the government had lied about the sinking of the Argentinian ‘Belgrano’ ship, and that in fact it had been sailing away when it was bombed. Although objectively Ponting had broken the Official Secrets Act, the jury found him not guilty.
Nearing the end of the arbitrary time limit on her evidence, Cressida said she wanted to add to what Ms Lancaster had said about the tone of the language in the Zoom call. It might sound like people didn’t care about the disruption and the public, but it was among people who had already battled with their conscience and the antimony in the moral argument. If she’d known the public would be watching, this would have been high on the agenda.
Realising she was near the end of her imposed schedule, Cressida said she wanted to address two more points – first about the May 2021 International Energy Authority warning there should be no new oil and gas if the government were serious, and the announcement the following year of multiple exploration licences (which was followed by resignations and a reaction from the UN Secretary General, and second about the vested interests behind lack of action.
Suddenly Judge Hehir stops Ms Gethin’s testimony and ejects the jury. He wants to deal with the issue of the arrested defendants. The prosecution lawyers warn the judge that case law sets a very high bar for excluding defendants from their own trial.
He asks Hallam, Shaw and Lancaster for their submissions and all three announce from the dock that they wish to be allowed to conclude their evidence as a matter of conscience and integrity. Hehir tells the court he is satisfied they intend to obstruct the procedure of justice and remands them in prison overnight.
Michel Forst
Having witnessed the jury being ejected six times throughout the course of the day, the UN Special Rapporteur Michel Forst looked bemused. He told Real Media that nothing like this would normally happen in French or Belgian courts and that juries there would be allowed to observe what was going on. In the absence of any substantive response from the UK government to his concerns over the treatment of Mr Shaw, Forst had issued a public statement just ahead of the trial:
“I urge the United Kingdom to ensure that any sanction imposed on Mr. Shaw for his involvement in the organization of peaceful environmental protest is reasonable, proportional and pursues a legitimate public purpose, in compliance with the United Kingdom’s international obligations.”
He indicated he would join the trial on Friday morning again to observe further events.
Friday 5th July – Jury sent home and further arrests
Outside the court, a few placard-holders stood in the rain. Judge Hehir told the court he was ‘relaxed’ about it and it ‘wasn’t a very nice day to troublemake or protest’.
A juror asked to be excused over a family medical emergency and the jury were excused until Tuesday.
A prison administration error meant that Louise Lancaster was still at Bronzefield, and arrangements were made to provide a video link later in the morning.
So the prosecution, Mr Chada, and the judge had a discussion about the way forward, first around the extent to which the arrested defendants should be present for the rest of the trial, and second about the timing of legal directions to the jury.
Shaw and Hallam were brought to the dock. They are asked if they will promise not to disrupt the court. Hallam says that since the prosecution have now agreed to present undisputed facts to the jury, he sees no reason why he can’t fulfil his oath and tell the whole truth by continuing his evidence. Hehir tells Shaw his ‘Why not try the real criminals’ line is ‘hackneyed’. He agrees it may be hackneyed but notes that the judge has still not answered it. Ruling that both defendants have completed their defence, the next stages are considered. The prosecution say they are willing to forego cross-examination if the jury are allowed to make an inference from it (a Section 35 procedure).
The Judge allows Hallam to make a submission as to why further evidence should be presented. Roger argues that the law should take into account the catastrophic immorality at stake if it wants to retain credibility with the public and protect billions of lives – in effect, an exception must be made around the letter of the law if necessary. Also, that it’s illogical to accept the objective and undisputed reality of extensive harm and then pre-judge that that evidence can’t be heard by a jury, not least because of its proximity in time and space – just because it’s about a protest action is not a reason to withhold it.
Judge Hehir takes a short break and then returns with his decisions. First, that Hallam’s behaviour suggests he believes he can address the jury however he wants – he has ‘no such right’. Second, that acceptance of the four ‘agreed facts’ does not confer any further rights. Third, that Hallam’s evidence is over and the prosecution are not unduly prejudiced by the absence of cross-examination.
Ms Gethin reminds the court that she is part-way through her evidence and wants to continue before any further legal directions are considered. The judge agrees it is unusual, but not unsuitable to proceed with preliminary discussions.
Not for the first time, the prosecution appear to push Hehir to reconsider his position and they ask about the status of the imprisoned defendants, especially Louise who is still at Bronzefield. Raj Chada also observes that if the purpose of their remand is to prevent obstruction of justice, then spending the weekend without proper access to papers and laptops might be disproportionate to the harm the judge wishes to avoid.
Louise then appears on video link and Hehir says he doesn’t want to exclude her from the court but she must undertake not to address the jury or carry out any stunts. She says the ‘stunt’ is for climate breakdown to be seriously in the court. Despite not making any promises, and repeating that she hadn’t finished giving her evidence, Judge Hehir grants her and the other two bail so that they can prepare closing defence speeches. In front of the UN Rapporteur he also promises to allow them a generous hour each in court for these.
Monday 8th July – Legal arguments
With the jury out until the next day, Monday begins with legal arguments over directions to the jury. Mr Chada argues that the failed High Court appeal over the sentences passed on QE bridge protesters Trowland and Morgan only considered the sentences themselves, and not whether the new Public Nuisance law should have ruled out an Article 10 defence, which may have given grounds for ‘reasonable excuse’ (Section 78(3)) and allowed the jury to consider the proportionality of the action in the face of the harm it was trying to prevent.
Judge Hehir drew attention to a Supreme Court decision over rights to protest outside (in conflict with the right to enter unhindered) to abortion clinics, in which Lord Reed ruled that the lack of any ‘reasonable excuse’ defence was NOT an infringement of human rights.
Chada proposed that actually Lord Reed had left the possibility open depending on the issues in each case, and that the jury should be able to carry out a human rights ‘balancing exercise’ on the facts of the case. Judge Hehir noted that the M25 action involved the breaking of an injunction and criminal trespass, and so already breached a right to free speech defence. Mr Chada argued that even putting up a banner would have done the same, and surely that would survive a proportionality test. Also that Hehir’s beloved “lodestar” Jones ruling (about our living in a liberal democratic state) would be nonsensical if that liberal democratic state didn’t allow free speech.
Moving on from proportionality and reasonable excuse, Chada then argued for the defence of necessity. Even Lord Hoffman granted that if there is SOME evidence of justification such as fear of death or serious injury, then the jury might be allowed to consider it.
In relation to the final possible defence, that of self-defence, Hehir said that there was no element of ‘force’ being used against the defendants and so self-defence would not be relevant. Chada mentioned there was some case law around the definition of force, but returned to the interpretation of Lord Hoffman that if there is SOME evidence of justification, then it should be left to the jury because the test for withdrawing matters from them is VERY HIGH.
Reminding the self-represented defendants that they were not lawyers, Hehir asks if they have any submissions. Hallam begins to speak about how we consider death and imminence, and the judge challenges him to explain whether climbing on a gantry could bring global temperatures down. Roger explains that blocking motorways has direct effects on society e.g. the farmers’ protests quickly changed EU policy, and roads protests held fuel prices down. The judge again asks whether the action had any effect on global temperatures and then told Hallam to sit down.
Daniel Shaw then spoke about the idea of a ‘functioning democracy’ and reminded the judge that they had submitted evidence of government criminality to the police. The judge maintained that if the police didn’t act they could go to civil courts or petition parliament.
Shaw argued that if we accept the new legislation we’re back to a pre-Suffragettes situation and that living in a functioning liberal democracy was a subjective view open to question, reminding Hehir that the defendants had submitted evidence that direct protest action does effect change.
Louise Lancaster asks to present evidence of ‘nexus’. The judge asks her somewhat facetiously how the physical act of climbing a gantry lowers global temperature. Hallam stands and says that he can show a direct path to change through society. The judge tells him to sit – he remains standing and the judge rises and leaves the courtroom.
Roger appeals to the prosecution lawyers to help him because the judge’s argument is ‘incoherent’.
When the judge returns, Hallam is still standing. Perhaps now because the UN Rapporteur is no longer present, Judge Hehir begins to act more performatively, quoting his ‘favourite movie, Goodfellas’, he asks Hallam “What are you still doing here?”.
Daniel stands and says that in the trial of Trowland and Decker, they didn’t have these four undisputed facts. Cressida stands and answers the judge’s question about how climbing a gantry can reduce global temperature – she tells him that just a few weeks after the action Labour brought in a no new oil and gas clause in their manifesto, and now they are in power.
Hehir orders Hallam be arrested a second time and leaves the court. Six police officers arrive and carry him out after telling him he is under arrest for contempt of court.
Eventually the judge returns and asks for submissions from the prosecution on admission of defences.
They say that they believe Articles 10 and 11 are not engaged, but that even if they were, it would be proportionate to prosecute and convict, and up to the judge not the jury to decide. As far as Chada’s argument about the sentence appeal on Trowland and Decker, they agree that the court didn’t actually rule on the proportionality of prosecution, but their position is that it stands to reason that if the sentence was proportionate, the prosecution must have been. There was also some discussion that the motorway was not open public land and so this would adversely affect Article 10 and 11 rights.
Speaking about the imminence of any climate threat in relation to reasonable excuse, Ms Ledward said that the nature and urgency of the threat the defendants rely on was remote in both in time and space, and it would be “at best, 8 years after their action before there were any permanent damage to the planet”. The law effectively allows them to be judged on their subjective beliefs, but the mechanism of changing government policy was outside any reasonable excuse for action.
Ms Gethin said the threat of irreversible climate breakdown was imminent, but the judge said that the prosecution’s concession to admit agreed facts didn’t give defendants the right to use climate change as justification. Ms Lancaster noted that with major tipping points approaching now, it was only governments and not ordinary people that could do anything, and so pressure on them is the only mechanism available.
Having heard enough, and once more in performative mode, Mr Hehir dismissed Ms Gethin by comparing himself to Queen Victoria dismissing Gladstone for addressing her “as if I was a public meeting”, and left the room.
Some time later Hehir returned with an outline of his ruling on available defences. He decided that the conviction of any of the defendants would not interfere with their Article 10 or 11 rights and that the judge would anyhow be the arbiter of disproportionality of interference. No issue of reasonable excuse or any common law defence arises on the facts of this case and none should be left to the jury. They will be directed on the facts of the case and not on climate change, despite the prosecution’s concession on ‘agreed facts’.
As Judge Hehir left the courtroom for lunch, Ms Lancaster called out “disregarding the facts of climate breakdown is an obscenity”.
—
Judge Hehir produced a draft of directions to the jury, and after lunch there is some discussion about whether previous convictions should be divulged. Hehir says that given Daniel Shaw’s behaviour in the court, it would be absurd to give a good character indication.
While legal discussions continue, the three defendants in the dock stand and begin reciting in turn “Facts not in dispute in a functioning democracy” followed by each of those four facts as agreed by the prosecution. The judge leaves the court.
After a few minutes Judge Hehir returns – the three defendants are still taking in turns the reading of the four short paragraphs – the four statements agreed as indisputable facts by the prosecution lawyers – a clear and concise summary of the UK government’s continued policy to effectively ignore a catastrophic, irreversible and existential threat to humanity. Speaking over them, he says he has decided not to give them an hour each for closing statement, but just 15 minutes. He then orders their arrest.
In the face of continued peaceful civil disobedience, the police officer in charge of the case, DC Barrett, who has been rolling his eyes and huffing at various points in the trial, now casts off any pretence of impartial professionalism and makes a sarcastic comment: “I thought we’d have another generation-defining stunt from Mr Hallam”.
The judge returns after seven police officers drag the three defendants from the court. He asks Ms Ledward how long she’ll need for the prosecution’s closing statement – up to an hour. Hehir says that he is confident the defendants will only need 15 minutes as they will not be allowed to speak about climate change. Mr Chada points out that, on the judge’s previous indication, they will have prepared an hour each, and as self-representing litigants they may require some leeway. Hehir responds that they are out to disrupt proceedings, and that 12 officers were required to remove them. Mr Chada corrects that number.
The defendants are brought back to the dock and Judge Hehir decrees that Hallam, Shaw and Lancaster are to be remanded, but Gethin will be on bail overnight and face cross-examination in the morning. Ms Gethin says she can’t submit to cross-examination because she has yet to complete her defence evidence.
Hehir tells the prosecution that despite his order not to, Roger Hallam has continued to post on social media.
Tuesday 9th July – Mass defiant ‘Defend Our Juries’ action outside court
More than 80 people sat or stood silently outside court for an hour before start of business, holding banners referring to the jurors’ power to acquit and right to hear the whole truth. A couple of dozen police officers attended but no arrests were made.
Inside the court, Judge Hehir had begun proceedings before allowing entry to the press. Once allowed in, we heard him admonishing Ms Whittaker De Abreu for ‘walking up and down smiling at the protesters outside’. Hehir said he did not want to take action against the protesters because “frankly they do not know what is happening in court”.
Ms Gethin returns to the witness box, where she tells the judge she wishes to finish giving evidence. The jury assembles and Hehir addresses them about the protest outside, describing them as people ‘with agendas’ to be ignored. He asks Ms Robertson, the junior prosecution counsel, to continue with the prosecution’s cross-examination of Ms Gethin.
Cressida says that she doesn’t wish to play games, and is willing to answer questions later, but that her liberty is at stake and she has not been given enough time to conclude her evidence and defend herself.
The judge clears the jury and tells Ms Robertson that he thinks the cross-examination will have to stop. Gethin observes that the prosecution had unlimited time to present their case, but she’s had less than half an hour.
The judge leaves the room. The public have been generally quiet and attentive until now, but as Hehir leaves, some in frustration shout out, “show trial, fake justice”.
Cressida apologises to the prosecution, telling them she really doesn’t want this to turn into a pantomime but has to retain her integrity.
Officer DC Barrett is now in full performance mode, making laconic comments about “psychological torment” and complaining he has to summon an entire bus serial to deal with this.
When the police do arrive, there are some concerns about the legal situation, with Detective Chief Inspector Fox asking for a clear direction from the judge. Eventually she is satisfied and Ms Gethin is carried to the dock, from where she walks with Serco staff to the cells.
Just outside the courtroom, a Just Stop Oil supporter was arrested by police, apparently for ‘conspiracy to interfere with national infrastructure’ – another of the new laws shaped by fossil fuel funded think-tanks.
Once the jury returns, Judge Hehir calls DC Barrett to the witness box to reveal Roger Hallam’s previous convictions – several for criminal damage, and one for public nuisance relating to the Heathrow Pause toy drone action. The judge tells the jury this completes the evidence, to be followed by his own first stage of summing up, speeches from the prosecution and defence, some final directions and then they will consider their verdict.
The jury are ushered out while the prisoners are brought into the dock and the judge tells Daniel that he will lose his right to a previous good character direction because of his behaviour in court. Shaw tells the judge he actually has one protest-related conviction anyway, which the court appears not to know about, and Hehir salutes his honesty.
When the jury return, Judge Hehir begins his summary by telling them his job is to ensure it is a fair trial, that they decide on the evidence, but he instructs them as to the law. Stressing that his directions ARE the law, he then reads them out in full to the court. Judge Hehir’s full written directions contain the following passage:
“the views of any defendant – however sincerely held, and whether or not you agree with them – about man-made climate change, and what should or should not be done about it, are entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not each is Guilty or Not Guilty of the offence with which they are charged. Climate change, and the beliefs of the defendants in relation to it, are not an answer to the indictment in any respect.”
—
Prosecution closing statement
They begin by telling the jury they must take direction from the judge, that the rule of law keeps our society free from collapse, and that climate change is irrelevant. They would show there was a conspiracy – the action couldn’t have happened without a plan, and that disrupting the M25 amounted to public nuisance.
Describing the Zoom meeting they quote Daniel Shaw speaking about “the project” and introducing Roger Hallam who, they say, “waffles about the cause”, and talks about his part in designing the project – “one of the most significant acts in decades”. They contend that his outline – four people in each of four quadrants, halting the motorway on four occasions over four days, a total of sixty-four people – showed he knew all the details of the plan. Shaw spoke of inviting people for a ‘high-spice action” demonstrating this awareness of the need for secrecy. He placed a training schedule in the chat and spoke about the ‘blue-light policy’ saying that the emergency services should be able to ‘minimise the risk to people’. The court had seen documents seized at Lucia Whittaker De Abreu’s residence and her part in the Zoom call describing practical elements of the plan. There was evidence too that she’d booked an Airbnb as a ‘safe house’.
The judge paused the prosecution’s speech for a lunch break, and Raj Chada indicated that Lucia had dismissed his services and would represent herself without legal assistance going forward. Before leaving the court he raised the issue of whether bail could be raised for the defendants once the jury retires for their verdict, but Judge Hehir tells him that because he believes they may ‘act up’ during any questions from the jury, or during the verdict, he orders that they remain on remand.
Hehir tells Lucia that she will have just 20 minutes for her closing speech. She requests longer, but he tells her that will be enough to address the evidence and she will not be allowed to speak about the defence evidence bundle or “what Bill McGuire or any other activist” says. The other defendants are told they must give their speeches from the dock and have themselves to blame for any disadvantage.
—
After lunch the jury are told that Lucia will be representing herself, and the prosecution speech resumes. Louise Lancaster is described as having been at the meeting, along with Cressida, to talk about previous actions they had been involved in, in order to encourage others to take part. The prosecution remind the jury that Louise also booked an Airbnb, and that her responses in cross-examination were ‘nonsense’. She had spoken in the Zoom call about back-up plans and that the action would “make a difference” due to “massive disruption”. She had also bought climbing equipment and was, they said, clearly part of an agreement both as recruiter and logistics support.
The prosecution quoted Cressida Gethin’s evidence that “there must have been some plan – it would have been reckless to do something like that without a plan”, and said that she had shared her experience at the meeting to help with recruitment. Later in the meeting she described the plan as “showstopping” and said she hoped they would get the numbers to take part.
With the prosecution case at an end, there was a short break and then Hehir reiterated that the closing speeches must not be used as a vehicle to introduce evidence not heard in the trial, that climate change is strictly irrelevant, and that each will be just 20 minutes long.
Final defence statements – Roger Hallam
Addressing the jurors from behind the glass panel of the dock, Roger began by reminding jurors they must be sure, not almost sure or on the verge of being sure, and that they must consider ALL the evidence and make a decision that they have actually been given all the evidence. He reminded them of the placard in the Old Bailey that confirms they can acquit on the basis of their conscience without having to give explanation and without any legal repercussion. There are two elements to the indictment, conspiracy and disruption. The prosecution have presented what they say is ‘powerful evidence’ of involvement in the plan, but this is not the same as ‘conclusive evidence’. Roger maintained he was there to make arguments for action, and not directly involved in actual planning. He asked what it says about civil liberties if people are imprisoned for making speeches, and he offered an alternative explanation for what happened – that a Sun journalist wanted to make a film of his arrest, resulting in prison for four months and being tagged ever since.
For the second part of the indictment, Roger reminded the jury that parliament had framed it as ‘public nuisance without reasonable excuse’ and suggested that there was good reason for this. Judge Hehir immediately intervened warning him not to mislead the jury.
Hallam continued by telling the jury it was ‘blindingly obvious’ they hadn’t seen all the evidence, nor had they been privy to all the legal arguments as to why they should or shouldn’t see all the evidence. He said they couldn’t be sure of guilt if they weren’t sure they’d heard all the arguments, and if they hadn’t been able to consider the ‘blindingly obvious’, could it be a fair trial. As an example he said, if a thousand people had been about to die a few minutes up the road, and that’s why the action happened, but they hadn’t been allowed to hear that evidence, it wouldn’t be a fair trial would it? Roger told them the defendants had wanted just a few hours, and three or four witnesses, to present the whole evidence, and had presented a document with 250 pages between them, not 1,000 or 10,000.
Roger said he wasn’t allowed to mention the ‘C-word’ but that the jury had seen the undisputed four FACTS – which between them describe an unimaginable harm lasting tens of thousands of years – and asked why they couldn’t consider that. He said that if they could consider it, they would do what many other juries have done. He suggested there’s an elephant in the room, and that this is what those other juries have worked out.
The upshot of the ruling in the Jones case is that sincerely held beliefs aren’t relevant, but what IS relevant is cold hard facts that will come to people if the UK government doesn’t rapidly enact changes. Lord Hoffman speaks of a ‘functioning democracy’ but the government is facilitating the destruction and death of its population. That’s why UN representatives have sat in on this trial – we do NOT have a functioning democratic state. If you go and ask people in the street, many would laugh. Plenty of expert witnesses would come and tell us we don’t live in a functioning democracy.
Finishing within his allotted time, Hallam asked the jury to consider this. “If I speak the truth to you I may end up in prison. If the lawyers speak the truth to you they may lose their jobs. If YOU speak the truth, nothing will happen to you.” He asked the members of the jury to say clearly what is obvious – we can’t destroy the world. He begged them to consult their conscience and ask themselves if they were really sure these people didn’t have a reasonable excuse.
Daniel Shaw
Referring to Ms Ledward’s speech about the law preventing societal breakdown, he reminded the jury he too had spoken about the importance of process to his work in social care, but that the November 2022 actions were taken to protect civilisation and the rule of law – on rare occasions an overriding moral imperative excuses an act outside of the law.
Alluding to his behaviour during the trial and the many resulting stops and starts, he apologised to the jurors but spoke of the tension between what the judge’s role was, and how a court functions, against the importance of what the jury needed to hear.
He suggested that the jury would not even have been allowed to see the ‘four facts’ if it hadn’t been for the defendants’ continued integrity and resistance (he mentioned they’d been dragged out of the court by police and held in prison, something the jury had not been told). He begged them to consider that piece of paper carefully and consider what it actually means for them and their families. The paper shows the government saying that we’re risking catastrophic and irreversible harm, the same government that in the month before the action were planning to make it worse by granting new exploration licences. If we live in a functioning democracy, why aren’t the people doing this on trial?
The Suffragettes needed to break laws to stop injustice and later were respected for that. Daniel said that he asked himself what people would think 20 years later – would what they were doing, trying to stop our government from destroying our society, really be regarded as a public nuisance? It was worth noting that just a few months later, Labour adopted Just Stop Oil’s demands in its manifesto.
Louise Lancaster
Louise began by recalling that when she was a teenager she was struck by that figure of a single person standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square, standing in the way of denial. She felt she was a lone figure trying to prevent a government failing to take existential threat seriously, and faced with mass media misinformation. The first ‘agreed fact’ speaks not of ‘beliefs’ but of horrific consequences. She said there was a stark difference between what she did in the face of those consequences, compared to what oil companies decided to do in meetings decades ago.
The judge immediately interrupted her.
Louise then spoke of the many marches she’d attended and petitions she’d signed over years, and how she had then embarked on non-violent direct action as nothing else would work in time. And yet, oil companies stand unaccountable to protect their property, aided by media – Rupert Murdoch sits on the board of Genie Energy… Judge Hehir intervenes again.
Flustered, Louise mentioned she’d tried to plan this new curtailed statement using paper and a blue crayon because she’d been held in a cell. She said she’d do her best to continue but felt she was being systematically silenced, not least because fossil-funded right-wing think tanks had helped design the legislation used against her…another warning from Mr Hehir.
Lancaster said simply that laws had been specifically created to bring cases like this to court. She said she couldn’t dispute the evidence and was proud of her part in the action. With no defence in law she would speak plainly that she’d acted in the public good to avoid cataclysmic harm. She worked with people who care, training in safety in non-violence, with informed choice, and she wanted to address why they had chosen civil resistance.
Soon after the Extinction Rebellion disruptive protests Michael Gove agreed something needed to be done and enacted the Net Zero policy, proving that large-scale disruption provokes change. But the government actually carried on making things worse, and their policies have even been challenged and shown to be unlawful, but no politician is in the dock over this. Louise said “this proves this is NOT a functioning democratic state, it is destroying the future for my children, and there isn’t a power on earth that will stop me from protecting my or your children, or those in the Global South”.
Louise Lancaster finished her speech with a reference to the film ‘Don’t Look Up’, and said we can’t go on simply ignoring the facts. The jury is being told to ignore the four facts not in dispute. “You have the right NOT to ignore them, with no comeback. I remain standing in the way of denial and speaking the whole truth, and I’m not moving”.
The judge called a short break after thanking the defendants so far for adhering to the time limits.
Cressida Gethin
Cressida began by noting that she often uses the word ‘we’ in her statement – and wanted to clarify this meant the community of people she’d met who try to save life. She thanked the jury for their patience and asked whose interest had been served by the attempts to silence any reference to the cataclysmic threat to life which had seen them ordered in and out of the court like yo-yos. She asked how it was right that the judge had ordered the concealment of 250 pages of evidence of imminent and catastrophic threat to human life?
Despite the rulings, persistence had at least got four facts through, but now the jury is being told to simply ignore these (not beliefs or opinions, but facts). She asked how they can reach a verdict without any context – how can these facts be irrelevant? A UN Special Rapporteur was so concerned at this that he had come from Belgium to observe, and he witnessed trial defendants being arrested and sent to prison.
While fossil fuel companies make huge profits, Cressida said that her generation was being thrown to the wolves, but perhaps a jury of 12 might stand up to that, and maybe that’s why justice is being concealed.
We’re told we live in a functioning democracy, but look at Grenfell, the PPE scandal, the Post Office injustice and others – we live in a society where the powerful are NOT called to account, and citizens are persecuted for calling them out.
Cressida suggested the judge was trying to push the jury into a guilty verdict by not letting them consider why she had acted like she did, but that jury equity is a great safeguard against unjust laws, and she’d rather put her life in the hands of 12 peers than in the hands of the people paid a lot to be in the court.
Quoting Martin Luther King, “Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anaemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love”. Cressida finished by telling the jury that the power was in their hands and theirs alone.
The jury were dismissed for the day and the judge turned to the matter of bail. The prosecution warned that usually everything is done to prevent the jury knowing that defendants are remanded. The judge agreed to address the issue with an instruction to them not to allow prejudice or draw inference either way.
As Ms Gethin had had to be dragged by police officers from the witness box earlier in the day, Judge Hehir ordered that she join the other three on remand and would be taken to prison for the night.
Wednesday 10th July – Final defence speech and the jury retires
Keeping up the Defend Our Juries vigil outside the court a few placard-bearers sat while police stood around watching, but again no arrests despite their actions being the same as those last week.
The jury arrived to hear the final defence statement.
Lucia Whittaker De Abreu
Lucia began by telling the jury she was nervous and would have to read her notes, and she’d timed it to adhere to Hehir’s ruling – allowing her just 20 minutes to explain herself in a 3-week trial. She said her silence had been due to recent ill health and finding it very hard to concentrate, exacerbated by stress.
Because she hadn’t given evidence, she understood she wasn’t allowed to talk about her background or story, but would be able to speak about the evidence the jury had heard and events they’d witnessed – the constant being told to leave the court then return, and the disappearing defendants.
She said they’d have to draw their own conclusions why people weren’t cross-examined but suggested it wasn’t because they wanted to obstruct, but rather, wanted to tell the whole truth. Any disruption was a consequence of being silenced – there would have been none if they had been able to put things in context – human actions can only be understood in context. If someone breaks a car window and you’re not told the temperature and that a child was inside, you’d think bad of them. If you’re in a hotel and someone is shouting and wakes you, at first you are annoyed, but then you realise they’re shouting “fire, fire” and actually trying to save you.
The judge keeps saying “this is not a trial about the climate crisis”, as if the person breaking the car window shouldn’t be able to talk about why. Lucia said her co-defendants were repeatedly stopped from speaking about the direct effects of government policy and fossil-fuel company mendacity, but after Roger and Daniel had kept going and emphasising it was about FACT not ‘belief’, then something amazing happened – that single A4 sheet of paper (the four facts). She asked whether it might have been because Michel Forst was observing the trial that day – someone who says we SHOULD be able to tell the truth? If fossil fuel companies are not bringing us to the edge of destruction, if the evidence of this truly isn’t relevant, why were it given to the jury? If these are objective facts, why did the judge prevent Hallam and Shaw from giving that evidence? For a moment, Lucia said she’d had hope some bit of truth was getting through, but after Forst left, the Judge deemed these ‘facts’ irrelevant. It felt to her she was being gaslit, like a horrible dream, a horror movie, and she wants to wake up.
The jury might ask ‘why climb up gantries and stop traffic – surely this would put people off?’ That raises the question of intention. It wasn’t their intention to disrupt – the intention was to change government policy and stop new oil and gas licensing. And in fact, early the next year Starmer made that commitment, which as of this week is the new government’s policy. That’s why disruption of a major motorway artery is such an effective technique for change. Lucia said they weren’t conspiring to cause public nuisance – in fact the opposite – there was no criminal motive – the intention was to protect the public. She gave the example of a doctor performing CPR (which might break the ribs of the patient). They wouldn’t let the patient die, just in case they broke their ribs, and they wouldn’t be prosecuted if they did break ribs. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand this – taking proportionate and evidence-based action is obvious. In 2022 it was clear our society was in serious danger, and the action was like the CPR – the M25 like a main artery.
The judge says there is no reason to take direct action in our society, but look around Parliament Square and you’ll see statues of Nelson Mandela, Millicent Fawcett and Ghandi. We’re told we can sign a petition or write to our MP, but how come in 2022 we were on the brink of catastrophe – had no-one thought of writing letters before climbing gantries?
Lucia said that no-one should be above the law, but in reality look at Horizon or the banking crash – massive disruption with no consequences. The fossil fuel industry has been concealing the truth for decades, using the same playbook as tobacco companies did, even the same PR agencies, and they pollute our democracy with misinformation. Is it really the rule of law that the powerful never face prosecution, only people trying to do good by holding them to account?
She reminded the jury about their power (jury equity or nullification), to find not guilty purely on what is fair and right, without any punishment or interrogation. She said that most of the defendants’ evidence had been shut out – and look what happened in the post-masters’ Horizon case – evidence about Fujitsu was withheld and it led to massive injustice. Even though the jury had only been allowed to see one page of defence evidence, out of 250, they were still the most powerful people in the room, able to apply their conscience and common-sense. Lucia quoted Baroness Hallett’s Blackstone Lecture on Trial By Jury:
“Juries provide another form of accountability. They ensure that in each criminal trial it is not just the accused that are on trial. They ensure that the criminal process is itself in trial.”
Nearing the end of her shortened time, Lucia said that this was a battle against repressive legislation designed to stop ordinary people, which can actually be traced back to fossil fuel companies. She was interrupted by Hehir who said this was inadmissible. She told the jury that her lawyer Raj Chada had indicated a guilty verdict would see her imprisoned for three years or more. The judge jumped in to tell the jury sentencing was down to him with a variety of options.
She ended by telling the jurors that the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had conspired to commit a serious criminal act, but that important evidence had been omitted so that fossil fuel executives could carry on making huge profits.
Judge Hehir then began his final summary for the jury. He began by repeating their respective roles and warning them against reaching a verdict on emotion or guesswork, on their views on climate change, or on the placards outside the court. He then addressed the issue of jury equity and spoke about the plaque at the Old Bailey and the case it refers to, but he characterised the persecution of the jurors who stood up against state religious persecution as entirely different.
Hehir effectively said he was just doing his job, that of directing the jury according to established rules which clearly state that climate change is irrelevant in protest cases, because their actions have to be judged in the context of a ‘functioning democratic state’. He pointed to the fact the government had just entirely changed (Election 2024), not through a military coup or rioting. He said if people were concerned about climate change they could write to their MP, campaign with other citizens, elect a new government, and even use the courts. He pointed out as proof that the government had “had its knuckles rapped” because their climate policy was deemed unlawful. And this, he said, was why criminal law cannot let people break the law in protest. He suggested that in a diverse society, if there were no such law, different groups of people would be blocking each other’s roads or breaking into each other’s buildings.
Hehir told the jury that although some defendants were in custody, this should not prejudice their verdict, that Lucia’s mention of sentencing should not sway them, and that just because bankers or fossil fuel executives have supposedly got away with something, that this should be pertinent.
He finished with a very brief summary of the evidence laid before the jury, and called a short break before final directions.
Before the jury returned, Lucia brought up a legal question about the Court of Appeal judgment on Trowland and Decker, saying that the court hadn’t actually ruled on ‘reasonable excuse’, but the judge referred back again to the Jones and Thacker case law, and he also take the opportunity to call her “very naughty” for her remark to the jury about sentencing.
When the jury assembled, Judge Hehir pointed them to page 3 of his directions – the questions they need to consider as their ‘route to verdict’ – and they retired for deliberation.
With an hour before lunch, supporters, friends and family members waited anxiously. That afternoon the wait continued, and the fact that there wasn’t an immediate and clear-cut verdict offered some hope, especially when there was still no news at the end of the day.
Roger, Daniel, Louise and Cressida spent another night in prison after being refused bail by Judge Hehir.
Thursday 11th July – The Verdict, and a warning over sentencing
The tension was palpable among the gathered supporters waiting outside the courtroom once again. After around an hour the long wait was over and the doors were opened. As had happened throughout much of the trial, observers (including members of the press) faced additional security and a pat down by court staff before they were allowed to enter.
The judge gave a warning to the public gallery that they must receive the verdicts in absolute silence. The foreman of the jury stood, and one by one gave guilty verdicts for each of the defendants, all unanimous.
Supporters were visibly shaken, and some cried. The judge said sentencing would take place on Thursday 18th, told them they would be welcome back to witness the sentencing, and then seemingly took pleasure describing the disruption and further arrests which had occurred out of their sight during the trial.
Hehir also addressed the jury on the matter of the 11 placard-holders he’d ordered arrested and held in a cell all day the previous week. He said he believed it was highly likely they were all guilty of Contempt Of Court. Aware of the High Court judgement in favour of Trudi Warner, he insisted this case was “significantly different”, with wording on banners which he said echoed those of Roger Hallam and which he said he was “satisfied” were orchestrated by him.
He then accused Hallam of fraud and ‘grifting’, with reference to a social media post asking for donations towards ‘court fees’. The judge said there were no such fees in this trial. Hallam had already told the judge he doesn’t directly write many of the posts, and that the wording was unfortunate. It was soon taken down and clarified to refer to the various costs incurred by defendants attending court. The fundraiser is ongoing and outlines exactly what any donations are used for: Support the five on trial for conspiracy
Returning to the issue of the placards, Hehir proposed to the jurors that if Hallam were telling lies to obtain money, he might be telling people other lies, and maybe those protesters were being told lies. He said one of them had been an elderly man hard of hearing and was worried Hallam was exploiting vulnerable people. This comment received gasps from the public gallery, some of whom knew the man in question to be a retired GP in full possession of his faculties with a keen knowledge of the issues – what an insult, and what baseless accusations. He added that anyone exploiting vulnerable people should take a look at themselves, then added he didn’t think Roger Hallam was capable of introspection.
The judge finished his astonishing post-trial comments by thanking the jury for not being ‘intimidated’ (saying “well done” and giving them his “personal thanks”).
Once they had left he turned to the matter of bail. Although the others would remain on remand until sentencing, Lucia was invited to make a submission. She told Hehir she needed to seek legal representation, get her affairs in order and sort out care for her elderly parents. When she mentioned her health as a factor, Hehir said she looked “fit and healthy throughout the trial”. She replied with the obvious observation that not all conditions are visible, she’d had Long Covid, causing chest pain and extreme fatigue, requiring rest. Her father has MS and her mother is awaiting an operation. She said as she had been on bail for 18 months without incident she was not a flight risk, and had not been found guilty of a violent offence.
The judge dismissed Lucia’s submission, telling her that it was a serious offence, that she would be going to prison for a long time and that she should have thought of her parents before embarking on her actions. He said that the QE Bridge protesters Trowland and Decker had received 3 years and 2 years 8 months, but that her offence was far more serious, planning disruption “so serious it could have cause societal breakdown”. He told Lucia any medical needs would be met in prison, and that there was a risk she would not appear at sentencing and would commit other offences.
Ms Gethin stood in the dock and fighting back tears, said that although they didn’t hold it against Judge Hehir personally she hoped he’d think about what he’d done.
Hehir said he didn’t care what they thought of him, he had just done his job, and that their conviction had resulted from their “single issue fanaticism”. He ordered the five defendants be taken down.
At the start of last week, Amnesty International published a report raising the alarm about a Europe-wide pattern of systematic attacks on peaceful protest – in it they point to the targeting of Civil Disobedience:
“Despite the fact that peaceful civil disobedience – the premeditated breaking of the law for reasons of conscience – is protected by the right of peaceful assembly, states are increasingly framing it as a ‘threat’ to public order and/or national security and responding to it with ever harsher methods. These include…arrests based on laws lacking legal clarity, harsh criminal charges and sanctions that include prison sentences”.
UN Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders under the Aarhus Convention stated:
“When, in the midst of a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, a peaceful environmental protester like Mr. Shaw faces an extended prison sentence in the United Kingdom, alarm bells should go off not just across the United Kingdom, but across the international community also. It signals that fundamental pillars of a democratic society are right now in grave peril in the United Kingdom.”
If, as indicated, prison sentences of several years are handed down his week, Judge Hehir will be sending out a signal that peaceful civil resistance no longer has any place in a functioning democratic society and must be stamped on viciously. In 2014 he let a thug go free from court after an assault on a police officer left him with injuries requiring the rebuilding of his jaw. The thug, son of a multi-millionaire, was given a suspended sentence of 15 months despite three previous convictions for common assault.
Last week the new Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warned that she’d inherited a prison system close to collapse and announced a plan to extend a Conservative initiative to release prisoners by reducing their sentences, but it will need secondary legislation and cannot happen for a couple of months. Operation Safeguard has currently repurposed 200 more police cells to hold inmates temporarily, but former prison governor Ian Acheson has warned that this means “we’re one major public order event, like football or protests disorder, away from collapse”. With prisons set to hit full capacity within weeks, criminals can’t be moved on from cells and the knock-on effects would almost immediately halt normal arrest processes, with widespread implications for bail, licensing and potential criminality.
Environmentalist Chris Packham has issued a statement calling for a halt to jailing protesters – “They’re not the fire, they’re raising the alarm”.
Organisers from the Defend Our Juries campaign have confirmed that their protest was planned with no input from Roger Hallam, and that Judge Hehir’s allegation (made in public and in front of the jury) that he was “satisfied” Hallam had orchestrated the protest, was baseless. One of their representatives, Tim Crosland, has lodged a statement with the court in which he says that “Judge Hehir should not be permitted to sentence the defendants for as long as he maintains demonstrably false beliefs about their conduct in the trial”.
—
Isn’t it time to revisit Lord Hoffman’s assertion that we live in a functioning democratic society? Isn’t the only way to make sense of the pantomimes and civil resistance going on in this court, to realise that the law has no way of dealing with people who are trying to tell the truth, other than to arrest them and lock them up?
This trial was awash with cognitive dissonance. The ‘Four Facts Not In Dispute’ were a small concession to reality, present through the rest of the trial like four disconnected elephant’s feet – although in plain sight, they didn’t give the jury the right to consider the actual elephant in the room – rapidly impending climate breakdown and the inevitable end of our ‘functioning democratic society’.
