day 6

bread not bombs / english / trial / first trial / day 6

Two Swedish peace protesters were planning to damage rails at VSEL to stop the Trident nuclear submarine Vengeance being rolled out last September, Preston Crown Court heard today (May 12).

Ann-Britt Sternfeldt, 38, from Gothenburg, Sweden, described what she and co-defendant Annika Spalde, 29, planned to do in the early hours of September 13 last year, just one week before the submarine was due to be launched.

"It was our intention to start with the rails and after that we had plans to go into the dock and continue with the submarine," said Sternfeldt, a social worker.

"I agree that we went into the shipyard in Barrow on 13 September, I also agree that we brought tools with us to disarm part of the Trident system. But I don't agree that we tried to commit any crime, or even intended to commit any crime. Instead we tried to prevent a crime, under international law."

All three knew they might go to prison, she said, so they held meeting with relatives and friends in Sweden, to explain what they planned to do. Under cross-examination by Vera Baird, defending, Sternfeldt agreed that her movement, Ploughshares, was strongly influenced by Christianity. Many priests and nuns were involved and an American Catholic priest, Fr Frank Cordaro, had been in Preston to support the defendants at the start of the trial. He had been imprisoned in the US for damaging a B-52 bomber. Sternfeldt, who is a town councillor for the Swedish Green Party, also agreed that all other methods to stop Trident had been tried. A British organiastion, Pax Legalis, had been trying for ten years to challenge the legality of nuclear weapons through the British legal system, but without success.

The judge refused permission for her to show a video of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs.

"There are two kinds of laws," said Sternfeldt, "just laws and unjust laws. The law is created by human beings and we are not perfect. A law is not right because it is a law, a law is right because it is just. The law is still on-going, it changes all the time."

Under cross-examination by Elizabeth Nicholls, prosecuting, Sternfeldt said her methods were democratic. "Civil disobedience is a European tradition, it has been used throughout history. Without that I would not have the right to vote as a woman, we would not have abolished slavery."

A Crown Court judge has ruled that Britain's Trident nuclear submarine does not break international law, and therefore three Swedish peace protesters had no right to break into a shipyard to try and damage it. The ruling of Judge Peter Openshaw was quoted by Vera Baird, defending one of the three, Annika Spalde, 29, against a charge of conspiracy to commit criminal damage at Preston Crown Court. Two other Swedes, Ann-Britt Sternfeldt, 38, and Stellan Vinthagen, 34 face the same charge.

Miss Baird told the jury of seven women and five men that the three broke into a VSEL shipyard last September in the belief that Trident broke international law, and therefore they were acting to prevent a crime.

This defence was disqualified by Judge Openshaw's ruling in the absence of the jury, after he had studied the 1996 opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, said Miss Baird. His ruling was that "there is nowhere any clear statement of principle that the possession of nuclear weapons is against international law; in my jdugement it is not. Despite the defendants' frequent assertion to the contrary, the possession of these weapons cannot be equated with a threat unlawfully to use them.

The ruling continued: "In my judgement every step in the construction of this submarine at the shipyards in Barrow-in-Furness and indeed every later step in the arming of the vessel with Trident missiles and her deployment with the Royal Navy by the Crown in accordance with Government policy to secure national safety, is permitted according to the laws of this country, which are in this respect in accordance with international law. Accordingly there was no crime to prevent and the defendants' belief to the contrary - even if honestly held - was mistaken."

Earlier Elizabeth Nicholls, for the prosecution, said there was no doubt about the strength and sincerity of Spalde's opposition to nuclear weapons - but that could not be a defence for breaking the law. It would open the floodgates to chaos, she said.

"No doubt the individual who planted nail bombs in London believed he was morally justified and morally right in what he did - he thought he was preventing some form of crime," said Miss Nicholls.

"This is a democracy and there are proper steps that can be taken to make your views known, and the Ploughshares group are fully acquainted with these proper steps. They can hold public demonstrations, public meetings, stand in front of buildings with banners, hand out leaflets, to try and persuade you. But they must take steps within the law, because the moment they step outside the confines of the law it gives the justification for any behaviour to be acceptable in society."

There was very little for the jury to decide, she told them. The facts were not in dispute - all three defendants had admitted they were inside VSEL, with hammers and other tools, intending to "disarm" the submarine.

There was no crime for the protesters to prevent at the Barrow shipyard, so they could not use that defence. They knew they were breaking the law, and their action was merely done to promote their cause and publicise a CND demonstration the weekend after their arrest, she told the jury.

"It may seem a tragic waste to see a lady of Spalde's calibre before this court, but no matter what sympathy you have, it is your duty, having decided on the hard, cold facts, to return -- however regrettable -- a verdict of guilty."

Miss Baird, for the defence, dismissed the comparison with the London nail bomber. "He has murdered three people - but these three people in this court are dedicated to non-violence," she said.

They had honestly believed they were preventing a crime, and "that defence fits this case like a hand in a velvet glove." But the judge had ruled that there was no crime, using the precedent of the 1962 case of the Committee of 100. "He is bound by a case all those years ago, so you may not make a decision about the difference between possession of nuclear weapons and threat," she told the jury.

She said that the British Government has often been found to have acted illegally, for instance the last government's changes to criminal injury compensation and the banning of homosexual recruits from the armed forces.

"The lawfulness of government policies are frequently called into question in other English courts."

This case was all about the question: Did they intend criminal activity? If, as the judge had ruled, there was no crime at Barrow for the defendants to prevent, of course ignorance of the law was no excuse, she said. "But we are not talking about ignorance of the law -these people have gone to tremendous trouble to find out what is the law, albeit that they are wrong according to the judgement we must follow."

In a similar case, a Liverpool jury had acquitted the four women who damaged a Hawk jet fighter, said Miss Baird. "A jury in England can decline to criminalise a group of people for this kind of action."

The defendants were motivated by the Nuremberg Principles, the international law created in the wake of the trial of Nazi war criminals. A Bible and a crucifix had been found with Spalde when she was arrested, showing her Christian beliefs.

"These three people should not be seen as criminals. They believed they had to do what they did, and believed they were entitled to do it.

"If a nuclear weapon is fired, and many thousands of soldiers and civilians are killed, I don't want to feel responsible. Should something be done now about it? We lull ourselves into thinking it may never happen.

"What is necessary for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing." Miss Baird told how she had noticed a statue outside a pub in Preston when she was jogging. The statue commemorates four cotton workers killed by troops during a demonstration in the last century, protesting against wage cuts and demanding a Charter that would give them the vote.

She quoted the text under the statue:
"Remember remember, people of proud Preston, that progress towards justice and democracy has not been achieved without great sacrifice

"Remember remember, people of proud Preston, to defend vigorously the rights given to you, strive to enhance the rights of those who follow."

The three defendants had been on remand for six months, they had come and explained what they did. "It is your right," she told the jury, "as citizens of this proud town, to find them not guilty."

----------------------------------
Andrew Hobbs (NUJ)
8 Hampton Street
Preston
Lancashire
PR2 2JL
UK

01772 721466