Charges dropped

At the verdict hearing on Thursday 11th July Justice Hehir dropped the charges against the 11 Defend Our Juries sign holders. As well as  dropping the charges, the bail conditions, which restricted the 11 from entering an area around Southwark Crown Court, were dropped. But there was a twist in the tail. Justice Hehir’s rationale for dropping the charges was that the 11 sign holders were “vulnerable” and had been “manipulated” by Roger Hallam.

All of the sign holders have been involved in Defend Our Juries for months, some since the beginning of the campaign. Some of the 11 were even at the Royal Court of Justice to hear Justice Saini’s ruling [1] that would appear to indicate the arrests on July 2nd were unlawful. 

Sign holders respond

None of the sign holders could have been at Southwark Court to hear Justice Hehir’s statement because of bail restrictions. In spite of that, reports of his statement have got back to the 11 and they have issued a joint statement [2] refuting the incorrect accusation. In the statement the 11 all say, 

“We vehemently refute the unfounded accusation that we were manipulated into acting for or by Roger Hallam or any other person.”

They go on to say,

“We are appalled that Dr Neil Stevenson’s hearing loss is being used as an excuse to cast us all as ‘vulnerable’ ”.

Defend Our Juries coordinator serves statement on the court:

Additionally, one of the coordinators of the Defend Our Juries campaign, Tim Crosland, served a statement on the court, disputing the judge’s allegations:

“As one of the organisers of the campaign, I can confirm that Roger Hallam has a) played no part in the Defend Our Juries campaign generally; and b) played no part in organising the sign-holding action outside Southwark Crown Court on 2 July specifically. It is one of the key principles of the campaign that defendants on trial take no part in organising the sign-holding. Individual sign-holding actions are self-organised by those holding the signs, according to common principles … It is surprising that a Circuit judge should publicly allege that a defendant has manipulated vulnerable others into committing contempt of court in circumstances where that allegation is demonstrably baseless and false. It is indicative of a loss of objectivity on his part. It gives rise to the appearance of bias against Roger Hallam specifically and the defendants in the case in general.”

Defend Our Juries Goals

The statement from the 11 Defend Our Juries  protesters points out that hearing the whole truth, and informing jurors of their rights to acquit according to their conscience, have been Defend Our Juries goals since the campaign’s creation and publicly visible on the groups website.

Scapegoat

It seems very convenient that the 11 protesters, whose ECHR rights may have been violated by the arrest, are being released, and at the same time blame is being shifted towards Roger Hallam. Justice Hehir has arrested and detailed Mr Hallam multiple times during his trial. We have to wonder, is Mr Hallam not being used as a scapegoat.

Press contact: 07795 316164

Email: info@defendourjuries.org

Notes for editors

[1] Solicitor General v Trudi Warner https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf

[2] Statement on behalf of the 11 people arrested while peacefully protesting outside Southwark Crown Court on Tuesday 2nd July. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JsEOUon2wP5QiwSKrRpSlP9MLuhTRr5f/

About Defend our Juries:

Defend Our Juries has the following aims:

1. to bring to public attention the programme to undermine trial by jury in the context of those taking action to expose government dishonesty and corporate greed
2. to raise awareness of the vital constitutional safeguard that juries can acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience, irrespective of a judge’s direction that there is no available defence (a principle also known as ‘jury equity’ or ‘jury nullification‘)
3. to ensure that all defendants have the opportunity to explain their actions when their liberty is at stake, including by explaining their motivations and beliefs.