Report 8 - the verdict, mitigration and sentence

bread not bombs / english / trial / Report 8 - The verdict, mitigration and sentence

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

The Verdict, Mitigation, and Sentence

Shortly after 2pm we were told that the jury were coming back into court, and everyone rushed back thinking that a verdict had already been reached.

In fact the jury had sent a note to the Judge asking for guidance, and the judge [ as is normal ] was seeking the opinion of prosecution and defence before giving an answer.

The jury asked: If the defendants actions could be classed as symbolic action to draw attention to their cause would their actions still be criminal as charged.

The prosecution maintained that the defendants purpose was irrelevant.

The defence said that in a conspiracy case purpose is everything: if there was no agreed purpose there was no conspiracy. The jury seemed to be discussing the question of the damage itself, and His Honour could direct them away from that line of thinking.

The judge presented his Direction to both prosecution and defence for approval, and both sides agreeing it the jury was called in to be told:

The defendants would be guilty if, and only if, they did agree to cause some actual damage.

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

Some time later the judge again told us he had received a further note. It intimated the jury's current voting figures and the judge held that it was neither necessary nor desirable that these be disclosed. He believed that the time had come where it was appropriate to give a "majority direction" and asked for comments from prosecution and defence. Both counsel agreed,

Stellan: You decide on that, Your Honour
Judge: Quite Right.

The judge called the jury in once more, and directed them as follows

Thank you for your further note, which I have received. I am going to ask you now to retire again, if you would be so good, and to continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict. However I can now accept a majority verdict, that is to say a verdict on which at least ten of you believe.

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

This time most of us supporters stayed in the court, as it seemed likely that the verdict would now be quite soon. Sure enough, the jury soon indicated that they had a verdict.

They were not called in immediately. There was a delay while the court prepared itself for a verdict .

Firstly a couple of court security guards appeared at the doors of the courtroom, and secondly two members of the probation service came and sat in the press box.

[ These two things happen whenever a verdict is about to be delivered -- nobody apart from the jury knows at that time what the verdict is. The guards are there to discourage the defendants from fleeing their punishment if the verdict goes against them, or indeed if the sentence is unexpectedly harsh. The probation service are there so that their office will know immediately if the judge orders any probation reports to be brought before sentencing, and also so that they know if the judge passes a sentence that is administered by their office, including probation and community service. ]

The judge returned, followed shortly by the jury.

Clerk: Your Honour, it is now Two Hours and Fifty Four minutes since the jury first retired to consider their verdict.

Would the chair of the jury please stand.

Please answer my next question with either a "yes" or a "no". Have you reached a verdict on which at least ten of you have agreed?
- yes

In the case of Stellan Vinthagen do you find Guilty or Not Guilty
- Guilty

by unanimous verdict or by majority?
- by majority

how many agreed and how many dissented?
- ten agreed and two dissented

In the case of Annika Spalde do you find Guilty or Not Guilty
- Guilty

by unanimous verdict or by majority?
- by majority

how many agreed and how many dissented?
- ten agreed and two dissented

The judge took the opportunity of thanking the jury for their part in the case, which he acknowledged was an intrusion into their lives. He thanked them for the care and attention they had given, and said they were free to go at this point if they wished, but were welcome to stay if they preferred. All of them stayed.

The judge said right away that he was not seeking to impose any further imprisonment in this case. In these circumstances did the defence wish to speak in mitigation.

Defence counsel raised the fact that both defendants had served a little over six months in custody.

The judge reviewed the fact that they had both served a little over six months in custody, having at first declined to ask for bail. When the court, of its own motion, granted them bail they broke the conditions the court had imposed and had been returned to custody. After the first trial the judge had released them on the basis that they had served as much time as they were likely to be given anyway, and that it would be unjust to keep them in custody awaiting the current trial.

Stellan spoke:

Well the jury has found us guilty, so we have failed to make ourselves understood and it is time for Your Honour to consider if punishment is appropriate.

I would like to ask for an unconditional discharge, as this is still a possibility for Your Honour.

[ An unconditional discharge is a strange feature of English law, and means that even though an offence has been committed the law will not punish and will not even keep a record of the offence. In effect it means that even though the defendant did not have a lawful excuse they did have a very good reason for what they did and therefore it would not be appropriate to treat them as a criminal ]

[ It is my own opinion that Stellan here is giving the judge an honest way to acknowledge the importance of our actions, without going against the letter of the law as the judge understands it. The judge is not here constrained by what he believes the law to be, but by whether he thinks what we did morally deserves punishment, or needs to be punished in order to uphold other people's respect for the law. I totally recommend this to be part of the plea of mitigation for any TP2000 activist found guilty in an English court, and perhaps we can bring in our respect for the law into any plea of mitigation to support this. ]

Stellan continued:

I would like Your Honour to know that I will continue to do as I have done before, to do it myself and to inspire other people to do the same. And I have also continued to do this while I was on bail, to help people preparing now for future actions. I will do this again. With great respect your honour, nothing you have said has convinced me I am wrong. I am thankful to Your Honour for the respect you have shown us, that you have given us the space to say why we acted -- this gives me good hope for the future.

The judge asked the prosecution whether the defendants were of good character, and when counsel hesitated he asked: are all their convictions in connection with the peace movement? She replied that all Mr Vinthagen's convictions were, and the judge said he would take that as being of Good Character. She then said that there was nothing against Ms Spalde, and the judge commented "both of Good Character then".

There was no need, the judge said, to take up reports unless the defence so requested
- no

and the judge therefore passed sentence

I accept without hesitation the sincerity of your views, and that you plainly thought you those views justified your actions. You wearied of the democratic process and went to the shipyard equipped with hammers.

Lest it be thought that you could have caused little damage let me say that it is clear that you could have caused considerable damage.

The legality of the British defence policy is to be queried, if at all, in the courts.

As a clear message to yourselves and to any others in your movement who may be contemplating similar actions, only a prison sentence is justified.

Both of you have spent just over six months on remand and that is certainly long enough. The interests of justice would not be served by extending that time. I therefore sentence you to each to that period which would result in your release today, and order your immediate release.

The defence counsel rose and asked for the return of the crown exhibits that had been taken from the defendants. The judge refused, but ordered that they should be given copies of any of the documents that they had not already got.

Counsel for the crown referred to the outstanding matter of the case against the third defendant, Ann-Britt. She had not been given instructions on whether the crown would wish to proceed with this or not.

The judge ordered that proceedings against Ann-Britt should be stayed [ paused ] while she is ill, and told the crown that they were free to ask for the case to be dropped if they decided to do that before she was fit to stand trial.

[ My guess is that the crown will not want another trial, they think they have proved their point here and the risk for them is that another trial might go the other way. If Stellan and Annika had been sent back to prison to do more time there would be some point to the crown chasing Ann-Britt. She has already. in effect, received her punishment and therefore the crown would be taking a risk with nothing to gain. But hat is only my guess, I am not a lawyer and I am quite often wrong about these things! ]

We left for the pub, and celebrated what we had to celebrate, that is the freedom of the two defendants, the fact that the judge took previous offences as being "Good Character" because they arose in connection with the peace movement, and most of all the verdict and the ruling in Scotland which happened on the same day as this verdict and sentence.

Stellan had been "dry" for the whole trial, and enjoyed with great relish a pint of Guinness, his first alcohol since the trial started. When his beer was being pulled the barman had used his skill to make a picture of a shamrock appear in the bubbles at the head of the glass, for Good Luck he said, and as is the way with Guinness the Good Luck remained all the time Stellan was drinking the pint. There was an international image here: a Swedish person in an English pub enjoying an Irish drink and an Irish symbol of hope.

I was asked to make these reports by the TP2000 legal team in Scotland, and have ended up with them published in the BnB website not the TP2000 one -- this is a small example of the international way we are working together.

If you are planning future Ploughshares / Plowshares actions in England, or are already waiting future English court cases, I hope these reports are of practical use. That is why I have written them. Along with these reports go my own wishes of Good Luck.

But maybe you'd prefer to take with you the image of a shamrock drawn in the white head of a pint of black beer: a lasting message of Good Luck that is the true verdict from the people of all nations.