FURTHER UPDATE: Following two slow marching protests with Just Stop Oil my previous update explained how the action against me for my second arrest had been dropped by the CPS, probably because they couldn't assemble the necessary paperwork in time for the trial.
TL:DR The result of the case relating to my first arrest was heard in Court and we (a group of 4) were acquitted because we had a lawful excuse for wilfully obstructing the highway using the Ziegler defence - our protest was proportionate. The prosecution case was a shambles, the CPS have NHS level admin skills.
FULL STORY: This is a detailed recounting of our day in court. Apologies to any legally qualified readers for the language used - I'm sure there are lots of inaccuracies.
After slow marching on Holloway Road on November 12th 2023 I had then pleaded 'Not Guilty' at the end of December and my trial date was set for April 30th 2024. Four of us were due for trial as a group for the same protest action but when our evidence papers arrived from the CPS (witness statements, body worn video DVD, custody records etc) we were given the date of April 29th instead which we confirmed by phone. We were now in a group of eight and potentially headed for a two day trial.
In the week leading up to the appearance the four who had been added to our group (let's call them A,B,C and D) were contacted by the court and had their case vacated (delayed) for rescheduling in July. A search online and two phonecalls, one to the CPS and one to the Court confirmed that we (E,F,G and Pete) should attend on Monday 29th. So we did just that.
Stratford Magistrate's Court (if you ever have to go allow at least half an hour for the security queue) weren't expecting us. Puzzled looks on faces, much head scratching and we were allowed into Court to meet the judge who wanted to establish why we'd arrived. They were expecting to see A,B,C and D this morning but we explained that their case had been delayed until July. The court said our case was scheduled for 30th. Questioning of the prosecution lawyer and the Court officials revealed that this had happened before and it was possibly because all eight of us had the same URN. The URN is the Unique Reference Number, but it's obviously not very unique. We explained that we had attended in good faith and had gone to great effort to confirm our attendance was required and requested that the case go ahead anyway - we knew the prosecution would have no evidence. The magistrate was a 'no nonsense' sort and so refused our request. Two of us had travelled from outside London (Worcs and Wilts) and had to find accommodation.
Ironically, we also discovered that for our case (E,F,G and Pete) the police witnesses
had been summoned for the 30th. It was only the defendants they'd forgotten to inform. The prosecution said at one point "Well it's not our fault" to which the magistrate said "Well actually, it is".
Next day, Stratford (if you ever have to go allow at least half an hour for the security queue) we
were expected! Same magistrate ("Call me Judge"), same prosecution lawyer. Five police had been summoned to appear as witnesses and were waiting patiently outside the Courtroom and their presence was discussed before the evidence-giving session began. Two of them were the arresting officers of A and B ("come back in July please"). One had arrested E so had at least turned up on the right day. E was considering contesting that his arrest had been illegal but in the end tactically decided against this and so this police officer was dismissed. The fourth police witness was a nasty piece of work whom we all remembered from the protest, and whom the defence lawyer had also taken an instant dislike to just from seeing her prancing around, prima donna-like, in the foyer. Much as we'd have liked to make her squirm we agreed to accept her written statement as evidence so she didn't have to take the stand and chose not to cross examine her. The thought was that she'd probably lie in the box
to maximise the impression of disruption caused and that wouldn't help our cause.
Prosecution case began. But immediately stumbled. As it did all day long. The lawyer's communication skills were pretty poor and her preparation was totally inadequate. She had the evidence relating to all eight accused in front of her because of the URN problem (so did we all, so much for GDPR) but couldn't work out which officer had arrested which defendant and couldn't locate the papers she wanted in a timely manner. And she couldn't get the appropriate body-worn police videos up without several attempts. One of the four (F) was represented under legal aid while the rest of us were self representing under the guidance of the Climate Action Support Pathway which trained us well. The legal aid solicitor was happy to give us all generalised advice and was very helpful to us all. And E was a former defence barrister and so had some worthwhile insights.
Just one police officer was called to give evidence in the Court, the other four who had waited over an hour were dismissed (and they say WE waste police time!). He was the overall commander on the day and was mild mannered, gave accurate representation of the truth as he saw it, did not speculate or condemn JSO. The defence lawyer and then E,G and Pete were invited to question him too. I'm sure I asked a question but can't remember what it was. The rest of the evidence was the reading out of the statements of the arresting officers and the showing of the relevant body-worn video footage. It showed little of the extent of the tailbacks because no one was deliberately pointing the camera in any particular direction, though we could see a few cars and two buses waiting. The arrival of an ambulance showed the protestors already leaving the road and a driverless police van parked across the road ahead of the protest extending the delay as it prevented cars moving aside to let the ambulance through.
Incidentally, the prosecution tried to get a CCTV video shown which tracked the whole of the protest. The lawyer had only been given access to it that morning and it was an hour long! As defendants we would have expected to have had two weeks foresight of the footage. The magistrate briefly contemplated and adjourned the court so that we could see it - the first ten minutes was advantageous to us as cars were passing us by but the defence lawyer said it was inadmissable, and as the prosecution lawyer hadn't yet seen it all the magistrate decided not to allow it as evidence because the prosecution "can't have been relying on it as it only appeared this morning".
And so on to the defence. F went first and her lawyer asked her questions about what had happened. The magistrate asked how F had become involved in JSO and about her life in general. Individually E, G and Pete could have cross examined F to bring out any points we felt hadn't yet been aired but there was little need. And then E, G and Pete each took the stand, gave a brief description of our position in life, how we came to be involved with JSO and what we remembered about the protest.
I began by explaining how I had a less emotional response to the climate emergency than many and that I took the pragmatic, scientific approach. And then I proceeded to break down (trembling voice, lump in throat; deep breath; continue carefully; as I retold the story of the 83 year old grandmother found floating in floodwater in her own home in Chesterfield). The magistrate lead the questioning and was determined to complete the case in one day after the delays at the beginning so we were each somewhat curtailed.
The prosecution lawyer cross examined us with very predictable questions for which we had ready answers, and she asked each of us the same questions despite never making any headway eg "Why did you choose the A1, it's a major highway, you caused a lot of disruption?" The response was basically "Because it was the A1 and we wanted to cause disruption to further our cause and raise publicity for it".
The prosecution then summed up and the magistrate didn't bother to let us do the same - she'd made her mind up already. We were acquitted having given heed to the Ziegler defence (see below) and were free to go and buy a round with the travel expenses granted. And free to protest again...
Ziegler: Under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR we have a right to protest and “public authorities should show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings”. Such protests should be proportionate and the relevancies we had to consider were:
• We were protesting about a very important issue
• Precise location of the protest
• Targeted
• Duration
• Extent to which we blocked the road
• Did we interfere with the rights of others
• Was there disorder
• Were the authorities given prior notification
I went into the appearance believing that it was a lottery and that the pre-held beliefs of the magistrate would be the most important factor. However, this magistrate had convicted four people the previous day on the same charge for a different offence – because it was longer and blocked more roads over a wider area.
