National Press

A prominent plaque at the Old Bailey celebrates the first time a jury refused to convict two defendants against the directions of a judge, in 1670. The Quaker preachers’ alleged crime was “unlawful assembly” and the case established a jury’s entitlement to decide “according to their convictions”.

Unsurprising, then, that at the high court on Monday Mr Justice Saini dismissed a contempt of court case against ex-social worker Trudi Warner, 69. She had held up a poster outside another London criminal court stating the same fact: “Jurors: you have the right to vote with your conscience.” The problem for Warner was she was outside Southwark Crown Court, where the now notorious Judge Silas Reid had been ordering defendants not to even mention climate change or fuel poverty as a defence or mitigation for their protest actions – and jailing them when they did (Eyes passim).

A new “Defend Our Juries” protest movement grew in solidarity after Reid ordered her arrest and referred the case to government law officers for alleged contempt. Last week lawyers for Warner argued that it was not in the public interest for her to be prosecuted; she had not interfered with the process of justice; her actions were protected by freedom of speech laws; and, as the Old Bailey commemorative plaque made clear, it was not unlawful for the public, including jurors, to know or be alerted to the principle of “jury equity”.

In a ruling seen as a blow to the government’s crackdown on peaceful protest, Mr Justice Saini agreed, saying Warner was “in essence a human billboard” and it was “fanciful” to suggest her conduct amounted to contempt. He dismissed solicitor Robert Courts’ claims that she should be prosecuted “to maintain public confidence” in the independence of the jury system and that, left unpunished, similar acts would be “likely to propogate”.

Last Friday, meanwhile, a medical practitioner’s tribunal found GP Sarah Benn guilty of professional misconduct. She hadn’t harmed or failed her patients, but had been found guilty of breaching an injunction by holding a poster saying “Stop new oil” at a Warwickshire oil depot. She was concerned that public health was seriously at risk from the threat of climate change, but was jailed for 32 days. Benn is now one of dozens of health professionals who face losing their licences to practice because of peaceful fossil fuel protest.

THE government’s senior law officer will this week ask the appeal court to close down the last remaining defence available to climate change and other protesters facing criminal damage charges.

The move follows a series of high-profile cases where juries have, it appears, voted with their conscience and acquitted protesters of spraying paint, smashing windows or toppling statues.

None of which sits well with a government apparently intent on criminalising peaceful protest. Only last month Michel Forst, the UN’s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, expressed alarm that fundamental UK freedoms were being crushed by “regressive” public order laws, punitive and unprecedented jail sentences, and harsh bail conditions. He was alarmed that judges, such as Silas Reid (Eye 1594) had prevented “public nuisance” road blockers from mentioning climate change in evidence or mitigation, even when their liberty was at stake.

This week’s test case raises another concern: the gradual erosion of legal defences that protesters can run before the jury. Attorney general Victoria Prentis KC will argue that there is, in effect, no realistic defence in law for activists who cause damage to buildings or property. Prentis and the courts cannot interfere with a jury’s unqualified right to acquit. However, by taking a “point of law” before the judges, she is trying to ensure it won’t happen again.

The specific case cannot be identified for legal reasons. However, recent direct action has seen a tactical switch from general disruption to targeting those investing in, profiting from or promoting fossil fuels. Some demonstrators have been cleared after running a curious defence: telling jurors that had the property owners known the full impact of climate change, they would have “consented” to the damage.

Activists were forced to rely on the somewhat tenuous get-out clause in the 1971 Criminal Damage Act, because the more usual defences of right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression had been withdrawn in another “point of law” appeal in 2022.

But the clampdown may yet backfire. Juries have historically provided an important check, acquitting when they think the law may be harsh, unfair or out of step with public opinion.

Some recent Insulate Britain, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil acquittals have followed protesters citing their moral, rather than legal justification. Which means all eyes will be back on Judge Reid at Inner London Crown Court, who, as the Eye went to press, was due to preside over a climate-change trial involving allegations of criminal damage.