Report 7 - Speeches to the Jury

bread not bombs / english / trial / Report 7 - Speeches to the Jury

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

Report 7: Speeches to Jury.

The crown spoke first, then counsel on behalf of Annika, then Stellan. Finally the judge sums up the issues for the jury.

-------------

The crown told the jury that they would be summing up their case against Annika only, due to a convention that means that they do not sum up against an unrepresented defendant.

It is most important that the jury understand they must be sure before they find the defendant guilty.

In her submission the crown has discharged that burden of proof.

There had been no dispute that they agreed to enter the shipyard.

There had been no dispute that they took with them tools.

There had been no dispute that their goal was to damage the track which was to be used for the launching - the roll out - of the submarine.

There had been no dispute that they intended the disarmament as they called it, or to do damage as the crown would say.

No dispute.

In some cases the law does give permission to commit a crime to prevent wrong, perhaps breaking down a door to rescue someone, but in this case they did not have a lawful excuse.

In these circumstances, as she had no excuse, she is guilty as charged.

Conspiracy is any agreement to do a criminal act.

There is no doubt of her sincere genuine belief. Father Fitz, as he seems to be affectionately known in the peace movement, described how she tries to live her life.

It is difficult to equate someone of that character with someone who could commit a criminal act, but sincerity is no excuse. There is only one verdict, and that is Guilty.

If sincere belief were a valid belief that would be the road to chaos, nobody would have and security or any protection from law. A TV thief might sincerely believe that all private possession is a crime so I have an excuse. When the police arrive, instead of arresting him they might say "you may as well take the videos as well".

It is not acceptable for us to say "I firmly believe that this is how the law should be".

Society imposes burdens and benefits. The burden is that I have to comply, and the benefit is that I can expect others to comply. I don't punch you, and you don't steal my wallet.

I may have great admiration for Ms Spalde but that cannot amount to a defence.

In a democracy there are ways to express views legitimately, by lobbying, by doing all the other things that have been done and I have no criticism of Ploughshares when they do that

but it is not acceptable to say that democracy is not fast enough, it is not acceptable to take direct action because you are not satisfied with the speed of the process.

If society came to rely on direct action because things move faster people would begin to forget about proper methods. That is why direct action isn't, and should not be acceptable.

You must give your answer about what this case is about, your own private views about nuclear arms should be irrelevant, you should apply the law in this case, and there is only one possible result.

The Crown have no issue with campaigning: Good Luck with your campaign. The Crown has issue only with criminal acts.

-------------

Defence counsel on Annika's behalf

Nelson Mandela.
Mrs Pankhurst.
[... others ...]

were all disobeying the law of their time, yet all obeying the law of humanity that we now agree is acceptable.

The crown would have said what she said today of Mrs Pankhurst.

You can acquit them.

This is an important case - a case that is globally important. If you were activists .. but if you were activists you would not be on the jury today. but your part is as important.

Consider the consequences of conviction in the murder case down the road
[ a doctor has been on trial accused of murder ]

it is only acquittal in a case like this that can make governments change, can make the government rethink its attitude to international law.

You are in a strange position with these people. Usually the people in the dock are violent, or dishonest, drug dealers maybe -- usually jurors get the moral satisfaction of doing the right thing

but these people in the dock are good people. The crown ask you to convict these extrememtly good people who put us to shame, all of us in this court.

In a few minutes you will be directed that they do not have a defence. The Judge has held that they are wrong, but he is not going to tell you to convict.

He will tell you they have no defence and will send you out, leaving open to you the possibility of acquittal.

This may seem strange, but you are not here as twelve people to rubber stamp the judge's decision.

In the 18th century a judge did actually tell a jury to convict, and they came back Not Guilty.

They were sent back to reconsider and came back again, Not Guilty.

Eventually he kept them on bread and water for three days till they would come back with what he thought was the right verdict.

That judge was wrong to so direct - as was held on appeal. Now I am not suggesting that His Honour would want to put you on bread and water...

[laughter, including the Judge]

Trident is an unlawful killing machine. A machine that actually kills, not just potentially.

Money. If there weapons just went, we would have billions to spend on the alleviation of poverty.

Hundreds of people have already died while I am speaking -- children mainly -- an actual killing machine.

Its significant that rich countries with nuclear weapons do not have civil wars -- it is the lack of money in poor countries that leads to the desperation of civil war.

Who are the supporters of this anti-nuclear campaign?

32 signed-up British MPs.

This is a movement that says we'll try to lobby and if that doesn't work we'll take nonviolent peaceful direct action.

That is 5% of MPs know this, and support Ploughshares and direct action.

The wider group of supporters includes over 100 generals and admirals, people who worked with nuclear weapons, who know the dangers, who know the policies.

General Lee Butler
General Sir John Carver - a member of the Establishment

They are not just fringe loonies.

The problem is not that democracy moves too slowly - the problem is that in this democracy we cannot do anything because all three parties are pro-nuclear. In fact you can't work through democracy, and it is just the same in the US with the Republicans and Democrats both being pro-nuclear.

The crown gave an example of chaos, but we are not talking here of smashing up property in shops

we are talking about people taking responsibility for their actions
we are talking about people who went tot he trouble to phone up the shipyard to see if the tracks they wanted to damage were ever being used for civilian ships.

They were guided in their own minds by what they considered the law.

The fact that this does not provide them with a defence does not stop you finding them not guilty.

Does HMS Vengeance have a defensive role? Look at its very name. It is about revenge not defence. In the US they have got the PR people in to help them with the names, they have a Trident called Corpus Christi, the ultimate blasphemy with the Body of Christ being used to deliver the nuclear weapons that will destroy our world.

There is not too much sensitivity in the nuclear weapons trade.

There is not far from this court a statue commemorating protester killed by troops. In the last century the state killed four protesters in Preston, and we must always remember that progress towards justice and democracy was not achieved without risk and sacrifice

Poem: Remember, remember, Proud People of Preston
[ I will try to get the full text of the poem ]

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, but you good people don't have to do nothing.

You can turn these good people into criminals -- they are not in fact criminals till a Guilty verdict is reached. Only you can do that, are you going to do that?

-------------

Stellan presented his speech to the jury, which once again was fairly close to the one posted on the website at

http://www.plowshares.se/bnb/english/trial/svdefencenew.htm

and I won't be including it here.

He was interrupted a couple of times by the judge, who would not let him speak of the testimony that would have been given by the German judge had it been allowed. He seemed surprised by the interruption and asked "You mean I can't even tell the jury what they missed?".

The judge replied that he would not have quite put it like that. The evidence having been ruled out Stellan could not sneak in in through the back door as he was trying to do.

He also referred to the trial that had just ended in Scotland where, he said three women had been using the same handbook and the same International Law, taking responsibility for their actions in the same way, had been acquitted not half an hour ago. The judge there had ruled that it was Trident that was illegal, not the attempted disarmament.

Here the crown had failed in their duty to present their case as they had not brought forward one scrap of evidence to show that nuclear weapons are legal.

The verdict has been supported by the highest judge in Scotland.

A brave judge in a British court. A British judge. All the same considerations as here, yet the judge there instructed the jury to find them Not Guilty.

I'll quote what she said...

Judge intervenes: No you won't, Mr Vinthagen. You must not tell the jury about other cases it will not help the course of justice.

Stellan: the jury can make its own conclusions

Judge: not on issues of law

Stellan: On matters of fact, yes

at which point he moved back into his prepared speech

------------

His Honour sums up the facts and the issues as he sees them

My duty is to advise you on the law which you must loyally follow in reaching your verdict. You need not fear any injustice if I am wrong, as the defendants think I am, as another court can put me right.

As to the facts you alone are the judges.

I am going to give you a summary of the facts. This is a selective summary as all summaries are, and the selection is mine. You must form your own opinion from the evidence you have heard.

There is no dispute as to the facts at all.

It is always for the prosecution to prove guilt, the defendants do not have to prove they are innocent. You must convict them only if you are sure that the crown has proved its case.

There are two defendants and you must consider the case against each separately. Since the issues of facts and law are the same for each defendant you may think that the verdicts will be the same for each, but that is entirely a matter for you.

Both defendants are of good character - a good character that goes beyond merely saying that they have no previous convictions, which so often is all "good character" means in these courts.

Two character witnesses - both associated with the peace movement - spoke of Ms Spalde's character. Father Arthur FitzGerald spoke of her character in the light of her Christian faith, and Rowan Tilley of her integrity.

There is no doubt that she would have said the same of Mr Vinthagen had she been able to stay to speak of him.

Good characters are in themselves no defence. A good character can be relevant as it supports credibility - or if you think that it makes it less likely that they would have committed the offence.

Each has admitted entering the shipyard intending to cause damage.

Mr Vinthagen has insisted on telling you of a large number of other cases involving other defendants, in other times, in other places, and in circumstances you know nothing about. Your duty is to decide this case on the evidence before you.

He has told you that this is a re-trial -- he is the only person to have mentioned this to you -- and this is likewise irrelevant. You heard the evidence, you must reach your own conclusions.

The facts are not in dispute.

The nuclear submarine Vengeance was being built at the shipyard and was soon to be launched -- rolled out is the correct term -- following which it would later be equipped with nuclear weapons and deployed in accordance with the defence policy of this country.

Three people entered the shipyard in furtherance of a plan. They entered separately and at night in order to have a better chance of slipping past security. Each had a holdall, hammers and other tools, and written materials explaining their defence.

They acted after much study and preparation, each having a deeply held objection to nuclear weapons. A belief in their indiscriminate destructive power. A belief that the money spent on them would have been better spent providing for the poor of the world.

Their movement is named after the famous text in the Old Testament, and in accordance with the name of their particular part of the movement they intended to leave a piece of bread at the scene.

They had attempted to make objection by lawful means. Believing that further law-abiding protest would avail nothing they entered the shipyard intent on causing damage, referred to by them as practical disarming.

The Tri-Denting Handbook makes it all very clear. That is why they had tools with them. Their action was in part symbolic but there is no doubt they could have caused serious damage. Mr Vinthagen had a plan showing parts of the submarine that were particularly vulnerable.

They were detected and arrested before they could approach the submarine.

At no time did they contemplate violence, all personal violence being abhorrent to them.

They intended to cause no danger in their actions.

They had no intent to run off or resist arrest, and freely gave their names and the fact that they were members of these peace groups.

Even if they had succeeded in causing damage they would have stayed awaiting arrest in order to take responsibility for their actions. Each gave only a short statement and refused to answer further questions, saying that they would give a full statement at the trial, as they indeed have done.

Their defence was clear from the Handbook and other papers in their possession at the time of their arrest, and it would therefore be totally wrong to draw any adverse inference from the fact of that they made no further comment when questioned.

There is no dispute as to the facts.

No-one can take what they wrongly believe to be the law into their own hands, that would deprive everyone of any effective protection of law. Belief provides no defence.

They have no lawful excuse.

Have the prosecution proved the facts so that you are sure they conspired?

Each of you gave an oat or affirmation to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence. That is after properly applying the law, as determined by me, to the facts as determined by you.

I ask you to reach a verdict on which each of you agree. You may be aware that in certain circumstances I can accept a majority verdict, but those circumstances have not yet arisen, and may never arise. Should those circumstances arise I will take the initiative.

You may find it helpful to appoint one of your number as a chair to speak on your behalf.

I ask you now to retire and consider your verdict, and let us know in due course.

-------------

The ushers then took an oath to keep anyone from interrupting the jury, and not to talk to the jury themselves except as directed by the court.

The jury retired at 12:20.

The judge extended bail for the defendants to allow them outside the court building between 1 and 2pm, and we went for lunch.