I, along with three others, face criminal charges for public nuisance — an ancient law with origins dating back to the 12th century. Public nuisance, as innocuous as it sounds, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, an indefinite fine, or both.
that power
This specific charge appears to have been deliberately revived as a “response” to an increasingly overt civil disobedience movement in the UK. A movement that has attracted widespread media coverage of the climate crisis and, more specifically, the Conservative government’s lack of substantive response to it.
Compared to the sheer volume of media coverage (five weeks of headlines, reports and newsroom discussions), the effectiveness of these campaigns was clearly embarrassing for the Home Office, which began pushing for increasingly draconian police powers “to make them Get out of trouble”. street”.
In October 2021, the UK government has been preparing to host COP26, an international climate conference of world leaders and prominent scientists.
It’s no surprise, then, that policing law has become politicized. However, the Metropolitan Police Force fought back. Protesting in 2021 remains a democratic right in the UK. But not for long.
In May 2022, the Home Office successfully pushed through Parliament a new Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill, giving police and courts greater powers to keep protesters out for extended periods of time.
Sentenced
A full year later, a second bill — the Public Order Act — was passed, explicitly targeting climate protesters with a new set of “tailored” charges. Human rights observers in the UK and around the world have expressed alarm.
As I entered the pier to take my oath, it occurred to me what a strange scene I actually was. After months of jury trials, hundreds of climate activists are on trial in courts across the country.
Given the apparent innocence of any of the defendants on trial—students, small business owners, environmentalists, teachers, carpenters, engineers, doctors, agronomists, professors, scientists, councilors, artists, architects, grandmothers, charities, public sources Mass abuse of the director – a microcosm of British society.
Still, many people, myself included, ended up spending time in jail, either on remand — two weeks in my case — or serving sentences of up to three years.
Engineers Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were sentenced to three years and two years and seven months respectively for protesting at Dartford Crossing, a bridge outside London.
disturbing
Thousands of hefty fines and court costs are routinely passed down, and “serial offenders” are tagged with GPS bracelets.
It is a profound and tragic irony that sounding the alarm about the unprecedented existential crisis we face, and taking issue with the UK government’s breach of its international obligations adopted under the Paris Agreement in 2015, should lead to the criminalization of citizens. He himself would describe it as the “most moral” man he had ever met.
Stepping onto a pier is a solitary experience. Facing the heavy pressure of the British establishment, there is a sense of diminished presence. The specter of unquestionable power has whispered through the centuries – “How dare you!”
Long-established institutional forms—wigs, long black robes, raised seats, dark wood panels, even humid air—created an atmosphere of “otherworldliness.” I quickly sensed a club-like intimacy amid the light-hearted banter and inside jokes between the judge and crown prosecutor.
In fact, cheerful and insightful comments are sometimes made against those of us who self-represent (i.e. do not have lawyers). Given the circumstances, I found it a little unsettling, especially when the judge was challenged and his blaring demeanor quickly came to the fore.
protesters
With its predominately black ushers, formal seating, high ceilings and airy public galleries, Inner London Crown Court smells unmistakably of the hierarchical power legacy of colonial rule.
When my trial came, Judge Reed had already been heavily criticized by the media.even eraa conservative newspaper, reported on his unusually strict rulings and the backlash they created. private detectiveThe popular satirical current affairs magazine, known for its satire of public figures, followed suit.
Reid’s notoriety stems from his uniquely strict court rulings — which I witnessed firsthand during the months of climate trials under his auspices. In my opinion, as the list of injunctions grows, the weak points in the prosecution’s case or the strong points in the defense are effectively eliminated.
Crucial to a judge’s trial management is the prohibition against reference to the background or motives of a defendant’s actions. Likewise, by banning common defense points used in protest trials, Judge Reed effectively eliminated all legal arguments previously available to climate protesters.
Many trials have won arguments. The moratorium has proven highly controversial not only among climate protesters, but also within the legal profession itself. Human rights lawyers gathered outside the court twice to publicly protest the judge’s stance.
Disobedience
According to Reed, the public nuisance charge itself precludes customary defenses. In addition, he announced that in his court he would not allow any reference to climate change or fuel scarcity as a reason for protest action.
This means the climate trial at Inner London Crown Court will be judged purely on the basis of traffic data points and technical analysis related to disruptions. According to Reed, neither the motive nor the context has any “relevance” to the cases.
In his vast range of evidence ruling, an emerging key document comprising 57 rulings, the judge stated flatly: “It is not necessary for a jury to understand why defendants behaved the way they did in order to determine whether they were guilty or not. Any The evidence on climate change is irrelevant.”
As the trial unfolded, a startling sense of disintegrating judicial neutrality came over me.Excessive marshalling of evidence in favor of the prosecution and scrutiny of the defense has become strictly.
For example, judges prohibited the historical context of civil disobedience as a mechanism for social change.
Upright
In his words, “the defendant must not give evidence about other protest movements through historical details or the effectiveness of certain methods…if allowed to speak…it would be easy for the jury to think that there might be some legal reason for the defendant’s conduct, It doesn’t exist.”
The judge’s position on this point is clear, but the jury hasn’t had the opportunity to make its own decision on whether the effectiveness of other protest movements is relevant.
In addition to his cumulative rulings, Judge Reed often offered to read our prepared evidence, including our closing arguments, to ensure that we did not “risk” violating his rulings. Most of us say no.
But when he rejoices in someone’s statement, it is generously amended. Right after that, prosecutors would casually refer to “integrity of motive” in our character references.
peaceful
Many of Reade’s peers in the judiciary have deftly distanced himself from his position. But he remains uncompromising in his interpretation of the letter of the law.
The defendant, who unapologetically challenged his ruling, was sent to prison for contempt of court. David Nixon, 37, was the first to do so. When he refused to apologize, citing “telling the whole truth,” Reade sentenced him to eight weeks in prison.
Meanwhile, other judges have made very different decisions.according to private detectiveUK law is ‘lottery’ when it comes to climate protests.
The magazine cited a judge in the town of Horsham who acquitted four protesters accused of blocking the highway on the grounds that they were exercising their “rights to free speech and peaceful protest”.
what is going on?
Weeks of immersion in such a blatantly contradictory world made me reflect deeply on what was happening within the UK judiciary; an institution long seen as the center of the judiciary, and a template for constitutions in other countries.
The legendary 20th-century political philosopher Hannah Arendt noted in her book, crisis of the republicthat civil disobedience “paves the way for real change and challenge in society, for reform, freedom, and change that could not have occurred without dissent and popular uprising.”
She argues that “the law can indeed stabilize and legitimize change once it occurs, but change itself is always the result of extrajudicial action.”
As my own trial draws to a close, days of judicial planning and categorical denial of the context and motives for our actions have consumed my soul and that of my co-defendants.
retrial
Towards the end of my closing statement to the court, I turn to the jury: “The Crown Prosecution has painted the public as our ‘victims’. This could not be further from the truth. Instead, we acted solely in the public interest care.
“This court’s decision forbids us from talking about the reasons for our protest. This court considers the motive and context irrelevant to the trial of this case. Public nuisance criminal offenses will be tried in a vacuum.
“But where is the justice in the law when context and motivation are stripped from any trial? The climate crisis is a fact. It is not the protesters’ ‘personal beliefs’ as this court has described. The public interest is irrelevant to inaction in the face of a crisis.”
The trial ended with a hung jury. The decision on whether to proceed with a retrial rests with the Crown Prosecutor, who is expected to make a decision on Friday, June 30, 2023.
the author
Mary Adams is a climate activist.
