Background Report

bread not bombs / english / trial / Background Report

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

Background

Three members of Bread not Bombs Plowshares, a Swedish Plowshares group that is associated informally with Trident Ploughshares 2000, entered the VSEL shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness while the fourth British Trident submarine was being completed.

They were caught before reaching the sub, but all three proudly proclaimed that their common purpose, planned together beforehand, was to damage the sub. They had tools with them to accomplish this, and written information outlining their plans.

Most importantly, they were also carrying loaves of bread, to be left as a hint of what the money that is spent on Trident could otherwise be spent on.

They were charged, among other things with conspiracy to commit criminal damage. They were not actually charged with criminal damage as they had gained entry without damaging the fences in any way.

The conspiracy charge meant that they were tried by jury, and the jury in the first trial were unable to agree on a verdict, even when offered the chance to come to a 10-2 majority verdict.

The retrial started this week. Originally planned for Monday, the trial finally almost started on Wednesday but after a few legal submissions was deferred again till Friday at the request of the defence. This is in response to a paper received from the prosecution outlining the prosecution's rebuttal of the international law part of their defence.
The prosecution have retained a separate barrister who has special knowledge of international law, and the defence felt it necessary therefore to retain an expert of their own.

I had understood that the prosecution were to call an expert witness on international law, but this has not happened so I think I may have been confused between an expert barrister and an expert witness. A similar confusion has arisen with the defence, with the judge expecting a second defence barrister but (unless I have got it wrong again) I think he is actually going to appear as a witness rather than as counsel.

I should mention that only two of the original three defendants are appearing, the third being ill at present. It is not clear (to me at least) if she will be tried at a later date.