A Matter of Conscience
Protesters from Defend Our Juries campaign. © Rupert Bedford
Rupert Bedford reports from a protest action by Defend Our Juries who are campaigning against the increasing restrictions being placed on defendants and juries in the trials of climate protesters.
By Rupert Bedford
11th November 2024.
The protesters walk slowly and silently. Some old, some young. An eclectic group, with each member holding a placard of a political prisoner. Their solemn expressions reflect an undoubted conviction, whilst also betraying a nervousness, an uncertainty perhaps as to what lies ahead, including the very real prospect of arrest.
They walk up Petty France in Central London towards their destination, the Ministry of Justice, where they occupy the street, and stand to face the building. Passers by give them a cursory glance and some stop to see what is going on. The police maintain a visible presence but have clearly been briefed in advance about the protest and do not stop them.
A quick scan of the protesters reveals a few faces that I recognise. Jonathan Porritt, the erstwhile environmental campaigner of my generation and nearby, retired social worker turned climate activist, Trudi Warner, whose protest outside the Old Bailey was the catalyst for this campaign by the group Defend Our Juries.
As the protesters quietly sit down I notice the windows of the Ministry of Justice. On them are inscribed various quotes. One of them, from Magna Carta 1215, states “No free man shall in future be arrested or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgement of his peers…”
The protesters are here to demand a meeting with the recently appointed Attorney General Richard Hermer KC to discuss what they say is interference by oil and arms lobbyists in the criminal justice process; their particular target being Lord Walney.
John Woodcock, also known as Lord Walney, is the government’s nominally “independent” advisor on political disruption. The former Labour MP authored a government report on how to deal with the recent surge in street protest movements. The report made a large number of recommendations to crack down on the right to protest, including effectively banning certain groups such as Just Stop Oil.
Since the publication of Lord Walney’s report, many climate activists have been jailed, some for as long as five years, following trials in which they have been banned from explaining to the jury why they have done what they have done. And all in the midst of a prison overcrowding crisis.
Yet campaigners point out that Lord Walney, whilst writing that report, was himself moonlighting as a lobbyist for companies with clients including arms manufacturers and fossil fuel giants.
As a lawyer myself with experience in criminal justice, this campaign has particular resonance. I mentioned Trudi Warner earlier. In 2023 she had been charged with contempt of court for holding up a sign outside court during the trial of Insulate Britain protesters, which stated “You have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience”.
The charges against her were later thrown out by the court. The statement on Trudi Warner’s sign was legally accurate. It was informed by a case in 1670 in which William Mead and William Penn were tried and acquitted of ‘preaching to an unlawful assembly’. A commemorative placard at the Old Bailey, no less, proudly celebrates the “courage and endurance” of the jury in their acquittal in that case which it states established “the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions”.
As Law Professor Richard Vogler explains in his Guardian article, through this “dark secret” of English criminal justice, also known as ‘Jury equity’ or ‘Jury nullification’, Juries have the power to return what is condescendingly called a “perverse verdict”. In other words they can acquit according to their conscience even if there is not a valid legal defence to the charge. But they are never told this by judges in case it encourages them to do so. As Vogler says, Trudi Warner’s offence seems to be to have let this particular jurisprudential cat out of the bag.
With recent judicial decisions rendering most standard legal defences useless to defendant protesters, including for example the defence of ‘necessity’ to property damage, some may indeed consider it ‘perverse’ that defendants are also now being specifically prevented by judges from at least explaining to a jury in court the ‘context’ to their actions; namely the climate emergency.
I ponder on how I’d feel if I was charged with an offence but not allowed to explain ‘why’ I did what I did.
After an hour and half the protesters begin to rise and start to sing protest songs as they move off back down the street and around the corner out of sight. They have made their point. It has been a dignified and peaceful protest. Was the Attorney General listening? Only time will tell.