Merrick
|
Ratcliffe on Trial
Nov 22, 2010, 12:07
|
Last April police arrested 114 people meeting in a building on 'suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage'.
There was a plan being hatched to shut down Ratcliffe on Soar coal-fired power station. Police charged 26, and 20 of them go on trial today saying they were acting to prevent a greater crime.
The whole thing is being blogged at http://ratcliffeontrial.org/
|
ratcni01
|
Re: Ratcliffe on Trial
Nov 22, 2010, 14:22
|
Its not mine honest guv!
Is just done the road though and there is a Ratcliffe St in the Ratcliffe area of Nottingham, so wanted to move in there!
Sorry Merrick, irrelevant I know, was just slightly alarming to see my name on there as the enemy!
|
Myers
|
Re: Ratcliffe on Trial
Nov 22, 2010, 14:32
|
I'm not sure that defence will work this time. Wasn't it used when some military items were sabotaged?
My memory is that they successfully used that defence because the items ( was it planes? Memory is foggy!) were in the immediate future going to be used in a way that would cause a loss of life?
With this, that immediacy will, I think, be harder to prove.
Still, I wish them luck with it
|
Merrick
|
Re: Ratcliffe on Trial
Nov 22, 2010, 16:30
|
It's actually been used successfully before in near identical circumstances. Two years ago a bunch of Greenpeace activists who shut down Kingsnorth power station presented the same defence and were acquitted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp
And yes you're right, it's been used in peace activist trials before too - four people trashed a Hawk jet at a British Aerospace factory in 1996 to prevent it being exported to Indonesia for use in the occupation of East Timor; in March 2003 two people were arrested as they attempted to trash B52s being used to bomb Iraq; and earlier this year a court acquitted pople who'd trashed EDO/MBM, a factory in Brighton that makes bomb clips for planes used for crimes against humanity in Palestine and elsewhere.
It's also been successfully used by people who trashed GM crops.
The folks who stopped a coal train going to Drax power station two years ago were prevented from using it as an admissible defence (though they still said a lot of the points anyway, for what it was worth).
The interesting thing about the defence of necessity is the wording; the accused has to sincerely believe that they were acting to prevent a greater crime. That they were actually preventing a greater crime shouldn't be an issue. This is, of course, if a court acts to the letter of the law and doesn't go 'yes but we're an executive arm of the government and you're acting against government, so down you go', as happens a lot with the anti-Trident activists using international law as a defence.
|
Myers
|
Edited Nov 22, 2010, 16:42
Re: Ratcliffe on Trial
Nov 22, 2010, 16:42
|
Thanks for that merrick - didn't know there were none military precedents for this defence
As I said, good luck to them
|
Merrick
|
Prosecution's opening statement
Nov 24, 2010, 11:27
|
The Prosecution's opening statement was bizarre. She said it was more “fun” and “exciting” for the defendants to “abseil down a chimney flue” than to “talk to Manchester United fans about the dangers of burning coal”.
“Was it more fun to plan this action or to vote for Zac Goldsmith? Did the defendants do all this because they didn’t have a Glastonbury ticket?”
At this point a member of the jury passed a note with three questions to the Judge.
“Zac Goldsmith? Man Utd? Glastonbury? What is the relevance of these?”. It needn't have been three questions, they could have put three letters - WTF?
The prosecution finished their opening and the Judge left it to the Defence Counsel to answer. He said there was no relevance and began, "I won’t go as far to say that the Prosecution’s remarks about the defendants were offensive..."
Then the BBC report it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/vyy7j/ 23:36 in).
"A court has heard that 20 environmental activists planned to shut down the UK's second largest power station for a week because it was more fun than democratic methods of protest".
Emphasis given to 'more fun'. So the prosecution Barrister comes up with a line based on nothing but their own personal prejudice and the BBC choose to report that as the beginning of their news item as if it is some sort of fact.
|
Loopy Lumbago
|
Re: Prosecution's opening statement
Nov 24, 2010, 11:59
|
Prejudice has become the main tabloid fodder.
Must be great fun being a prosecutor these days.
|
Merrick
|
Guilty
Dec 14, 2010, 15:22
|
After days of deliberation by the jury, the defendents have been found guilty. Sentencing on Friday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/14/ratcliffe-coal-station-activists
|
Merrick
|
sentences
Jan 05, 2011, 18:18
|
The offence carried a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment, a £2,500 fine, or both.
Judge gave conditional discharges ranging between 18 months and two years to 13 defendants; five defendants were order to do unpaid community work of between 60 and 90 hours, due to prior convictions.
Only two defendants have sufficient means to incur fines, receiving penalties of £500 and £1,000 respectively.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/05/ratcliffe-coal-protesters-sentence
|
Merrick
|
Re: Ratcliffe on Trial
Jan 10, 2011, 13:13
|
The trial of the 6 defendents who had a different defence (saying they weren't going to the action, rather than the 20 who were but said they were justified) has collapsed.
Media reports say it's after an undercover officer switched sides and offered to give evidence for the defence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753
Actually, he had said he wasn't going to do any such thing. The prosecution said that as an undercover officer was on the action, he must have given a report. They said this amounted to witholding evidence and asked for disclosure of documents relating to the officer's involvement. The police refused, so the proseuction withdrew the case.
So, it's not the officer's work for the defence but his work for the cops that made the difference.
|
