Report 4 - Case of Annika

bread not bombs / english / trial / Report 4 - Case of Annika

trial
----------
press
----------
articles
----------
about
----------
support
----------
contact
----------
welcome

Report 4: Annika's defence

This report covers from mid-morning on Tuesday 19th till mid-morning on Wednesday 20th, to keep Annika's testimony and all her character witnesses in the same report.

Annika's intentions for her testimony are available on the web and as she kept quite close to this I will not repeat it all here.

In a couple of places she did do something different than planned.

Where she listed the items she took with her, the judge asked her to read out her own statement, and he emphasised to the jury that this was in her own handwriting and (unlike the other items which were prepared by consensus or by other people) this was all her own words.

And she also pointed out that a lot of the things done to the Jews by the Nazi's were not illegal in Germany at the time, and that it was to prevent these sort of things happening again that the Nuremberg principles were formed. Asked by her counsel what the two cardinal principles were, she said

- protection of the civilian population, which means that we must never use weapons that make it impossible to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, and

-prohibition to cause unnecessary suffering even to combatants, so states do not have unlimited choice of weapons they can legally use.

Later on she also quoted the so-called Rifkind doctrine, in which the previous government emphasised that Trident could be used to protect our vital interests, including investments abroad, Trade, and supplies of raw materials. The current British government has not given up this doctrine and has said it would consider a limited nuclear strike to protect our economic interests.

[comment: I think all these additions were very useful, including the one prompted by the judge. It is very helpful to have something prepared and even more powerful to be willing to change it a little as you go along]

She was cross-examined by the crown, who started by saying that nobody in the court could possibly doubt her strong views about nuclear weapons, and her belief in the immorality and illegality of those weapons.

The action was planned together over a period of time
- yes.

From 1997 the three of you worked together
- yes.

When you entered the shipyard you intended to damage the submarine?
- We intended to remove the tracks used not solely for Trident but for all three previous Tridents.

Any other ships?
- There is no civilian construction at all.

You intended to cause damage to the submarine itself?
-To make it not able to kill people.

So you would have used the hammer to strike the submarine?
- Yes

you agreed between you what to take?
- Yes

The Tri-Denting handbook was common between the three of you
- it formed one of the bases of our group

Hammers with messages
- messages for others, not just for our own moral courage

Global justice is a great concern of yours?
- yes

An imbalance of power?
- One of the messages, one of many things we wanted to bring forward

A strict timetable: can you turn to the Tri-Denting It handbook Timeline

[we broke for lunch at this point before actually looking at the handbook]

Annika agreed the timeline, and confirmed that she was there on August 11th when we asked the base commander one last time to begin to disarm Trident. She agreed that there were who weeks of open inensive actions at Faslane and Coulport and that only after that did secret/unannounced actions start elsewhere.

And you came to Barrow on 12th/13th September?
- yes

What changed between your arrival in England and the 12th/13th September?
- the government had made no attempt to disarm

No sudden declaration of war?
- no

You say this was your last opportunity?
- yes, on 19th it was being launched, after 19th it would go to Scotland and we thought it would go quite soon. We were not aware it would stay in Barrow.

Is it right that much of the handbook is directed to Faslane and Coulport?
- yes, but so far because of the high security there it's impossible.

Who legally possessed the submarine?
- The British people constitutionally owned the submarine

What did you think was happening to it at Barrow. Was it being constructed?
-yes

So did you think that maybe it was the property of Vickers?
- no, it was being built specifically for the government

Who has the right of control over the submarine?
- people appointed by the government had control, the British people had lost control of the submarine.

So who had legal ownership?
- the British people

But the government had day to day control?
- yes

It was unarmed
- yes

You were aware it was not due to join the fleet till 2000?
- we thought it was about to go out on patrol

Please look at the handbook section 3-2, headed "How to safely disarm a Trident submarine". It says here that HMS Vengeance's first patrol would be in the year 2000
- but it would have nuclear weapons before that

You say the British public would have agreed with your action - did you personally do anything to find out what the British public thought? The people you knew are in TP2000, its hardly a mass movement like say a trade union is it, you've got, what, about 200 members?
- 100 have signed the pledge. Over 1000 supporters

Not an enormous movement, if you'll forgive me for saying so. Did you stay in Barrow before breaking in? Did you ask local people? Are you aware that Barrow relies on shipbuilding?
- yes, local people need to be able to support themselves - they have a right to a job but also a right to be able to consider which kind of job

Why the middle of the night? Because people who worked there would have stopped you. If you thought they'd agree you'd have gone in the middle of the day!
- They did not have enough information

This was part of a political protest
- we wanted to promote action and to make the government think seriously about Trident

You would have remained at the scene
- yes, to take responsibility for our actions

Not just to underline publicity?
- [ answer very quiet, I couldn't hear and maybe the jury couldn;t either ]

You had a full legal briefing
- yes it is important to prepare yourself, to know what is involved

Tri-Denting It Handbook section 5-6 "options open to you in court" [wait while everyone turns to it] It is worthwhile to make publicity, etc. You are just using this courtroom for politics
- no it is a legal process, which clearly does have a political meaning

[ Note: I have tried to capture the feeling of the cross examination here, maybe not all the words are exactly right.

Comment: In some places it is clear the prosecutor was trying to get Annika flustered, like asking three questions at once and so on. A couple of times this did succeed in getting Annika to say something slightly different to what she believes, and that is easy to spot afterwards, but of course much harder to avoid at the time.

But the big victory was that Annika's honesty and sincerity came through much more clearly even than when she was given her own story -- overall the prosecution made her look better, not worse. I think maybe the prosecution realised this too, because they were not the same with Stellan, but that does not come till the next report.... ]

Stellan Re-examines Annika

You believe nuclear weapons are illegal, does that give you the right to do what you did?
- I have the right, sometimes even the duty. I have the law behind me

so according to your beliefs it would be reasonable for you to be acquitted?
- yes

Has the Hawk acquittal influenced you?
- their whole action but especially the acquittal moved me

She then described the need to prepare as action involves the problems of fears, worries, being taken away from families. Preparation includes community building, and having an opportunity to discuss with family and friends.

How about the effects of nuclear weapons? Is there a difference between ordinary weapons?
- very different, refers again to handbook.

That night, what were we trying to do as practical disarmament?
- dismantling, and taking bolts off symbolically.

The defence then called Father Arthur FitzGerald as a character witness.

Liverpool parish priest for 27 years, priest of 2 parishes, in one unemployment is as high as 70%

Annika came to our house in the summer of 97 after the women's action re the Hawk jet. She wanted to support our parish community, which was an intentional living together of lay people practising poverty and hospitality.

She sticks to the tenets of the Catholic faith - very passionate - seeking how to live out the faith she has within her.

Would you say she is careful to ensure that everything she does is consistent with her faith?
- yes, so much so it scares some of us -- always living the truth rather than her own desires.

What is the Catholic stand on nuclear weapons?
Judge: you can't ask the witness about the tenets of the Catholic faith

[ methinks, if you can't ask a priest, then who..... ]

She's not someone to look for self-glory?
- Looking for martyrdom? no, quite the opposite, if she could find a way that didn't cost [...] I'm sure she would.

FatherFitz also spoke of her compassion for her fellow prisoners when she was in custody.

He was asked about the biblical basis of the Ploughshares name
- This prophecy comes twice in the Old Testament, in Isaiah and in Micah. "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks". Weapons turned into the means of nutrition and food, hence also the other part of their name, Bread not Bombs.

Did you discuss with her the standpoint of the Catholic Church on nuclear weapons?
- yes this was very important for her, the church re-iterates that even when not used nuclear weapons kill the poor, and we are not to separate ourselves from humanity but to live in common with them.

Is there a connection with weapons and policies?
- policies in one part of the world produce the conditions in other parts of the world.

You yourself have been taking a stand, FatherFitz?
- yes, our western policies and lifestyle are in breach of common humanity. Those who would pursue Jesus honestly want to address these issues

Do you think it made an impression on her to see a Catholic priest taking a stand?
- maybe we influenced each other

We went home for the day, and when we came back in the morning we were as surprised as the judge was to discover there was one more witness for Annika. The defence called Rowan Tilley.

Ive known her since 1996. I met her is Sweden at a presentation I gave about another Ploughshares trial.

The Judge intervenes to stop discussion of another case that is entirely irrelevant to the current one, all the issues being totally different

- we met at a presentation I gave concerning another case.

We discussed international law defences, legality, and legal defences in English and International law. We didn't really discuss the current case. The legal defence of international law is part of her motivation.

Rowan was re-examined by Stellan

When you met, was the context relevant to the current case?
- very relevant the gathering was very much focused on nonviolence and openness. My opinion about her character also comes from a presentation she gave that I went to -- a workshop on the Liverpool Catholic Worker community. She clearly believed in solidarity with poor people and the oppressed.

And that ended the defence for Annika, which took just a few minutes less than a full day in court.