"Conspiracy to commit criminal damage, whiteout lawful excuse"

Contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

The Act: Dismantling equipment for mass-destruction weapons at VSEL in Barrow-in-Furness 13th of September 1998. Arrested on the way to reach the Trident nuclear submarine HMS Vengence in the attempt to make the submarine unusable through safe and practical disarmament of key parts.

At Preston Crown Court on December 11th 1998

Your Honour, as I stand here on the 11th December, three months after our attempt to disarm the Trident nuclear submarine, I together with my two friends Annika and Ann-Britt, am accused of ‘conspiracy to commit criminal damage’. I am asked to plead ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’, but honestly I do not know what to plead.

In one sense I think I am guilty. Yesterday, on the 10th December, it was 50 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, which gave every human being on this earth equal rights. Among these rights is the right to life, for everyone without exception. But I have, I must confess, been part of a massive conspiracy to commit criminal damage through acts of criminal obedience, allowing the militarism of the rich in defending their property, at the same time as the starvation of the poor were going on.

My obedience, together with others’, has made it possible for 20% of the world’s population to own 80% of the wealth, at the same time as 30,000 children have been starving to death each day. The damage done to these children and to the poor is a terrible crime to which I plead guilty.

But in another sense I think I am not guilty. Tomorrow, on the 12th December it is 12 years since I, together with three German friends - Heike, Susanne and Wolfgang, disarmed a launcher for the Pershing II nuclear missile at a military base in Germany. Our act of citizen disarmament was one year later confirmed in the INF treaty, in which the superpowers USA and Soviet Union decided to disarm Pershing II. Paid and skilled workers did then the disarmament in industries - obviously not an act anyone would regard as ‘criminal damage’. So, I believe what we did on the 13th of September at the shipyard in Barrow, UK - carrying our household hammers on our way to the fourth Trident submarine - was simply an agreement amongst ourselves to nonviolently, safely, accountably and openly disarm the world’s most powerful terrorist weapon. It is a weapon that is used every day as a pointed gun at someone’s head. It is a weapon that is used to keep the poor down and to protect the property of the rich.

So, Your Honour, I believe I am guilty of ‘conspiracy to commit criminal damage’, but not on the 13th of September.

Prosecutor: Ms Nichols

"[They had decided that] legitimate means were insufficient…[and] adopted what is sometimes called direct action""You decide on the facts"

"You must take direction on the law from the judge"

"You must be sure that they are guilty, that they had no lawful excuse…nothing less than sure, probably is not good enough, maybe is not good enough"

"[Their damage] was unlawful damage…without lawful excuse"

"[Sometimes it is acceptable to damage property, for example,] breaking down a door to prevent a crime or to protect other property".

Under the Criminal Damage Act, lawful excuse is explained. You,

? must have a genuine belief

? the action protects property in immediate need of protection

? the means used must be reasonable in the circumstances

"The Crown says,

? there was no immediate threat or danger to property,

? the action was taken to promote political views,

? Their actions, in all the circumstances, were not reasonable."

A similar defence is available under the Criminal Law Act,

"But the Crown says,

? no crime was being committed,

? their actions were not reasonable"

"It was…"

*Intentionally or recklessly

*Genuine belief

*"Damage"

*Morally justified, convicted people, we can feel sympathy

*Compare with the nail-bomber in London, the chaos created

"Publicity Statement"

*Tried to create attention for the CND-demonstration 19/9

*To promote political views

*Making a trial to a "political forum"

*A statement to get attention

*Paragraph 5.8 in handbook about options in a court (disrupt, demonstration etc)

*"Hostile attention at other launches"

*"Pressure group" (according to interviews)

"No Danger"

*No immediate danger (no threat, unarmed, Patrol until 2000)

*No missiles on board

*"In order to protect" but there where no immediate need for protection

"No Crime"

*No crime to prevent

*No dispute of facts

*Prosecution to show no lawful excuse

*Government can do what they want with NW

*They knew it was criminal (see statements)

"Unreasonable"

*Experts needed for disarmament

*The action would not disarm the submarine

*We live in a democracy

*There where other alternatives of action

*"There exist proper ways"

*This is a "waste" (trial and prison)

(Some ten VSEL-Security guards and Police Officers)

Goal of examination: In trying to prove that they where mislead by superiors and lack of knowledge, which led to a wrongful arrest/imprisonment of us and lack of investigation of the true crime – Trident! They where not preventing a crime but simply following orders, through pure routine.

To VSEL-Security and Police Officers:

-How did we talk and behave? (Calm, following orders, threatening?)

-Why did you arrest us?

-Why do you think these persons where there?

-What orders do you have on how to treat people in the area? (Check for permission/right to be there, shooting?)

-Did you have any information on the TP2000 Campaign and the coming actions?

-Do you understand yourself as having the duty to uphold the law?

To protect human life and society?

Irrespective of nationality?

-Have you been informed on:

International law/Nuremberg?

NW-policies of Britain?

The power and effects of Trident?

Accidents/ecological destruction/etc?

Threats to other ethnic groups/national groups?

-Is it correct that you did not have any information on the legality of Trident, your obligations under the international law, the work of TP2000 or the intentions or permission of the "intruders" at VSEL - and that this lack of information or judgement is of no importance for your work or arrests of these people?

To the Police Officers:

-Is it the duty of the police to investigate alleged crimes if they are seemingly serious and motivated?

Are you aware of accusations saying Trident is illegal under international law?

Has there been any criminal investigation before we did our action?

In our action we brought with us motivated statements, even with specific paragraphs of international law, saying Trident where illegal and it was our and your obligation to disarm it - have you seen them?

Then, has there been any criminal investigation after our action, during the more than one year since then?

Why not?

-Do you have specific orders from your superiours not to investigate (because of fear for what powers you might challenge)?

-Is there a reason for why your department so obviously do not take the alleged crime serious? Is it not true that you refuse to accept the possibility of your government making a crime?

-You said you where sure building Trident was not a crime in England & Wales.

Is murder a crime?

Is conspiracy to commit murder a crime?

Is genocide a crime?

Are you aware of the Genocide Act?

If not then you cannot be sure Trident is not a crime in England, can you?

-If you where given such evidence that you were convinced Trident was both illegal and immoral (a danger to the weak), would you still have seen it as your duty to arrest and stop us from disarming Trident?

Your Honour there is no case to answer since the Crown has only proved we where there, intended to disarm Trident, were acting peacefully and friendly and were taking full responsibility. The security officers do not know anything about Trident, their obligations under international law or the laws that says Trident is illegal. They simply did not know that in case of a criminal activity at VSEL they were legally obliged not to arrest people coming in to the area trying to stop the crime. The police have revealed that there have been no investigations of the crimes alleged by us, despite that we even served a written indictment where we stated the crimes and laws. They have had 13 months to do that.Further the Crown has not even attempted, as is its legal duty, to show that there was NO lawful excuse in this case. The Crown has not called any witnesses to show that Trident did NOT pose an immediate danger or constituted a crime. Ms Nichols simply assumes that there are no danger because she is not knowing anything about that.It all adds up to that we have no case to answer and the trial should be closed and we should be released immediately.

It would be wrong to believe what you do not know does not exist. It would be wrong to let the jury only hear our version of the dangers, since there is not even an attempt to answer from the Crown.

Since not even our believes are challenged, the trial is not about if we, or if we not, in fact honestly did believe there was a danger from Trident. It is evident we did believe Trident was and still is a immense danger to humanity and societies very existence and life. So, the trial is about if in fact there were an immediate danger posed by Trident or not. Our genuine and honest believes that the owners of the nuclear weapons (or the resources they represent) would have agreed on our disarmament act, has also not been seriously contested by the Crown. We do believe that the formal owners, i.e. the British people, and the moral owners, i.e. the poor in the world – would have agreed on us disarming the nuclear wepons if they would have been informed properly and if they would have been asked directly.

If what we did is legal or illegal is not possible to judge if we do not look on the dangers from Trident seriously. I am aware Trident is not on trial today, unfortunately, we are, or rather the attempted citizens disarmament of Trident is on trial. But that still does mean that the danger from Trident needs to be in focus of our discussion. If not, our act of nonviolent disarmament is made meaningless, without sensible reasons. If it where not for the dangers posed by Trident we would not have done our action, we would not be standing here accused of "conspiracy to committ criminal damage" in the first place.So, it all means that since the Crown is not challenging our core of defence, the owners likely permission, the dangers or illegality of Trident – which all motivates the necessity to act – there is no case for us to answer really.

We are charged with "Conspiracy to commit criminal damage" to property belonging to VSEL/The State.I will try to show for you Members of the Jury that this accusation is not correct. It was not a conspiracy. It was not criminal. And it was not damage to property. Further the resources did not belong to VSEL or the state.

We made a consensus decision, i.e. we all agreed on together, to try to do a lawful, moral and responsible nonviolent disarmament of a dangerous Mass-Destruction-weapon built by VSEL for the British State with resources morally belonging to the poor and starving of the world, in order to stop the further "armed robbery" of the South carried out with the help of Trident. We did not "conspire" since that implies, at least in common understanding, a secret agreement to make a crime. We acted openly wereby we even in a letter to the British government and through a a major British newspaper told all our intentions and gave our full names, three months before acting. If, on the other hand, the Crown means we "conspiered", in a litteraly sense – yes, then that is correct, since we did "breeth together", which is the english translation of the latin meaning of the word "conspire". But I can’t see in what sense "breething together" could possibly be a crime!We did not destroy property or even attempted to do that. Trident is something we rightly should call "anti-property" since "property" means something which is of proper use for human beings. There is simply no proper use of mass-extermination of humans. It is improper in its very construction, threat and all possible use. Further we did not attempt to "damage" anything, since we simply where intending to intiate the disarmament process the government is avioding. When the government is not taking responsibility the citizens need to. We are just ordinary citizens and we can only start a process and invite others, using our simple tools of household-hammers. By practical disarmament of Trident we would not have "damaged" it, we would have improved it since it then would not, at least until others would have repaired it, have been a threat anymore to thousands or millions of human beings. It would have been improved, not damaged!Our act was simply our small possibility of taking responsibility for these terrible mass-destruction tools and invite others to carry on the dismanteling and disarmament process. This is exactly the way it did happen the first time in history when professional workers in industries did disarm the nuclear weapon Pershing II in USA and Soviet Union in the end of the 1980ies. That is our hope that such a professional disarmament will follow our and others initiative of citizens disarmament of Trident. An aquittal in this court case would increase the pressure on the British government to follow their legal obligation to bring disarmament negotiations to a conclusion wereby all nuclear weapons will be properly destroyed.

There is in this trial no dispute on:

That there was an agreement to do disarmament of TridentThat we was and still are, prepared to take full responsibility for our actThere is on the other hand a dispute on:If this act was justified legally or morallyThe reasons behind why we did it in this practical way We will try to show that:

1: That our intention was not to present our political views in general, create attention as such, show disrespect for the law or property of others etc. (No criminal intent)

2: we did and do still believe that: it was absolutely necessary to act and there exists a lawful excuse, since we (only) used reasonable force in trying to prevent a grave crime and enormous danger, and that the formal owners of Trident (or the resoruces it represent), i.e. the British people, and the true moral owners, i.e. the poor in the world – would have agreed on our disarmament, would they only been properply informed and directly asked (national criminal law defence)

3: there exist a legal right or even an obligation to prevent war crimes / genocide / crimes against humanity under international law, a area of law that is valid and binding in this country as in alla others (international law defence)

4: Even if it was not legal (or according to the legal practice of today) I was trying to uphold my moral duty through breaking the (practice of the) law that is safeguarding injustice. Since what we did was nonviolent, open, accountable and safe - then we were of no threat what so ever to life or society. Instead we tried to protect life and essential common values (moral defence)

With my own witnessing and the giving of evidence from other witnesses I will call to this court I will show that Trident is:

*Illegal - being constructed as and being used as simply and only a Mass-Destruction-weapon or Extermination-tool. (Here we rely on the highest court in the world, the International Court of Justice in Haag, specificly their explenatory opinion laid out in 1996 on the law and nuclear weapons)

*Posing an immediate danger to life and society, through war, mistakes, accidents or ecological destruction.*Immoral and unjust against the poor, a threat to the Third World functioning in the same way as "Armed Robbery" in an unjust economical world order.

*Mentally Corruptive on our culture and self-understanding, in such a way as for example Trident submarines in the name of Christianity are baptized by priests, making a religion which is talking about the love of you neighbour in fact threatening the rest of world with mass-destruction. *Undemocratic, as being against the national majority in England, Scotland and Sweden (those directly involved) and, more important since they are the targets, the the poor who are the ignored Global Majority. I will show that individual brave judges as well as courts in Europe, already are saying that nonviolent disarmament of nuclear weapons are lawful and have acquitted activists doing the same thing as we. And you should be aware that this is a retrial, already a second attempt of the Crown to suggest our guilt, since a group of the last jury did have the courage to say we were not guilty.

During this case you will hear a lot of new things and some of it will be difficult to fully understand, since we might not be good enough to explain what we mean or the matters might simply be a bit complicated. But I would like to summerise our defence in one sentence which might help you: We claim, simply, that mass-murder and the law is mutally excluding each other! (You have to choose, both as a combination is impossible and further mass-murder will make morality, democracy, reason, compassion and culture meaningless).

Our "Criminal damage" was an attempt of practical disarmament of Trident. It was technically possible, nonviolent, accountable, safe and open. It was under the special circumstances (with no legal alternative, no time to wait, blocking Military/Economical powers, no political will/ability to prevent NW) a proportionate, reasonable and necessary attempt - in trying to avert immediate danger, to us, to millions of people, to the poor that hunger for justice.

If we are guilty, then the name of our crime is Responsibility.

My name is Stellan Vinthagen; I am 35 years old and a PhD-student in Peace Research. I am here today because I am accused of a crime. I have a family life, a professional carrier and friends. I would have preferred NOT to have to take the risk of years in prison, in a foreign country, being separated from those I love and risk loosing job and money. We have already spent six months in prison, being on remand. Now we do risk a maximum of ten years in prison, if you find us guilty. This is a serious case and it becomes important for you Member of the jury, to listen carefully. Not just because we are risking our freedom, but most importantly because this is a case that might look like an ordinary small case, but it is acctually all about our future and the future of humankind.

The last 20 years of my life has forced me to act. The people, information, documentary films and experiences have lead to certain knowledge and believes. A knowledge and reasonable belief that it was and still is an absolute necessity to disarm Trident Mass-Murder-weapons.

I grew up in a family and environment where a sense of solidarity and personal moral responsibility was emphasised. My grandfather was a professional soldier, sentenced to prison because he against order let Jews escape into Sweden, passing his border checkpoint. He was brought to a military trial, faced accusation of commiting a crime and went to prison. Today we all praise people like him for their moral courage. Today we say that what he did was legal, not a crime, instead something we all should be thankful of. My parents where engaged in the ecological movement. In many respect my parents where pioneers, for example my father wrote articles against nuclear power in the 1950s and my mother has been giving shelter for refugees on the run from oppression. I was particularly influenced through reading Gandhi and as well Millgram, who was an American social psychologist who studied obedience, trying to understand how it was possible that so many people where willing to aid the Nazi project. He showed through his experiment that the vast majority of people were willing to carry out orders, even if the orders where cruel and dangerous punishments of fellow human beings, even if there where no consequences of refusing (except having to leave the room), even if the only authority present was a man in a white coat which gave the situation a scientific air… In many respects this social experiment provides an explanation for how it is possible for normally peaceful and kind people to become involved in projects such as building nuclear weapons and carrying out acts of genocide. I will never forget the German commander who, after being accused of the death of thousands who died at his concentration camp, said that "I have never killed anyone. I only gave orders!" It made me understand complicity and obedience from a new perspective. It all looks for me as a giant moral corruption, where everyone is escaping his or her moral responsibility. If some people "only obey orders", others "only give orders" while mass-murder is committed, there is no one taking responsibility and everyone can blame all evil on someone else, something else, an abstract "system". It seems still to be the normal reaction today, when talking about horrendous and systematic violations of human rights, that we blame leaders of the system who gives order. Others blame on the other hand the rank and field soldiers or workers who follow orders when doing state-organised mass-murder. By doing so, we know who is to blame, and it is never we, is it? But the simple truth must be that we all are responsible; the leaders, for giving orders, the soldiers and workers for obeying them - and you and I for not trying to stop the mass-murder!

At this time a grew up in a morally aware environment (I learned at an early age about the demands from the Third World of a so called New International Economic Order, their demands for a fair trade not dominated by the conditions of the overwhelmingly rich countries) but I must confess that I was mostly interested in football and the dream was to become professional. Anyway it did not turn out like that. I attended Swedish State schools and at the age of 18 majored in environmental protection with the intention of becoming a biologist working against environmental destruction.

In 1980 there was a turning point. I became politically active for the first time. There was a referendum in Sweden about nuclear power. I became involved in the campaign trying to remove nuclear power stations from Sweden, hoping for a success like the one when the peace movement won the battle against a Swedish nuclear bomb in the 1950s. The result was rather muddled in that out of three alternatives; the middle alternative was passed. This provided that the amount of nuclear energy in Sweden where doubled but should be phased out by 2010. Now, twenty years later, there is not one single nuclear power station that has been taken away, there are no solution on the waste problem, there are no serious efforts of development of alternative and ecological energy; and now there are talks of another referendum…It all teached me that voting, even in one single issue, does not automatically ensure democratic justice.

And on nuclear weapons we have never even had a referendum. Nuclear weapons was secretly introduced in Britain, unknown even for the British parliament! Since then the British people, the owners of the resources that are spent on nuclear weapons, have never been properly informed on the matter or directly asked by the government. In Sweden the democratic system is suppose to secure the rule of the people and the people’s controle of all public authority and power according to the constitution. I know that Britain does not have any written constitution but I assume the idea and judicial tradition behind the democratic system is the same, that the people are the ones that are suppose to make the central decisions and controle the power of the state.

During this struggle I became aware of the fact that nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are twins. Environmental destruction and destruction of human life are connected through nuclear weapons. We would never have had the energy developed in the first place if it where not for the need for developing these mass-destruction-weapons. We would not still have them if it was not because of the continues need, as the military and political establishment say, of these mass-destruction weapons. I also learned that democratic decisions are not only a question of what the people want but more so of what kind of power structures we live under. There are certain limits to what decisions the politicians can make (but not of their promisses!). The economical limit is one. The global economical market reacts immediately even on single speeches by ministers from the government (they move billions from place to place in seconds and by that change the everyday lives of the voters). The military limit is another. It is one of the biggest economical investments for any government, which means it posseses a lot of weight when decisions are taken. Weapons, strangely enough, also gives politicians prestige, an air of powerfulness, which they seem to long for a lot.I took part in demonstrations against nuclear weapons in 1983 when there where about a million people altogether demonstrating in Europe. In Gothenburg where I live we where 30 000, the biggest ever. I involved myself in the Red Cross and Save the Children, trying to encourage people to give from their wealth to the poor children. During my involvement I learnt that the people of the Third World live on average 20 years less than we, that the total budget of UNICEF (UN aid for children) equals what we spend on playing golf in the west. I decided to become a nurse instead of a biologist so that I could serve the sick in the poor countries. My brother and sister went to Mother Theresa in India but I did not find anywhere where I was needed, since I did only have a simple half-year education as a help-nurse. My only offer was to go to Lebanon during the civil war and I eventually decided not to go since I did not dare to risk my own life.

During this time I tried to live simple and give away all my small earnings to aid projects for children to make it possible for them to go to school and get medical attention. After some years I realised that I am not morally strong enough to give away all that I have to the poor. I started to realise that there are no individual solutions/models to global problems. We need collective action and organising. Even if a lot of individuals try to do well, there are some who do evil and terrible things; and we need to make resistance against them. That is, if we want to be able to organise support for each other in a way that is not demanding on all of us to be saints.

I worked for the Swedish Peace Council, an umbrella organisation for the Swedish peace organisations, and helped organise the World Peace Congress in Copenhagen 1986. The Congress involved some thousand people and was one of the major congresses in the world that year. People from all over the world came together to try to work out ways of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. It should be remembered that this took place at the height of the Cold War between Soviet Union and USA.

What made the biggest impression on me was meeting surviving persons from the Hiroshima nuclear bomb during World War II, the "Hibakshua". Thier personal memories and suffering made an unraseable impression on me. Their stories of burn-damaged bodies, pshychological destruction from the chock and the still high level of cancer, genetic damage and deformed babies; reminded me of all the sick people I have cared for during the years I have worked at hospitals. The youth with learning disabilities who I truly loved but who suffered so much, the face of the people that knew that they soon where going to die, the night I hold the hand of Paul, a lonely refugee, during his struggle before his inevitable death, being the only one present in the dark room, since his family where already killed or refugees at other places. I tried to imagine all this on a scale doubled a thousand times, a million times or a billion times. I realised THAT is the true reality of nuclear war. Not the official images we are given of "state-protection", "shelters" and "safe-places". The only ones with safe shelter that will survive a nuclear war are the ones that might give the orders to use the nuclear weapons in the first place, the government and the military generals and admirals.It became for me for the first time clear that nuclear weapons could as well be illegal! I met lawyers that where associated in an organisation against nuclear weapons. I heard about the 500 judges in West Germany that declared in an add in a morning paper that nuclear weapons where violating the international law. It was all very new and surprising for me who before had thought those nuclear weapons where just simply dangerous, immoral and a politically controversial power-tools.

What has as well profoundly impressed me has been the words I have heard from military personnel that earlier have been working on NW. If they who earlier have been commanding the weapons do not know what they talk about who would else understand? I met a former Norwegian Officer from Nato who told me about an military exercise Nato had in Norway, which lead to that he immediately left the military and stared to work for the peace movement. He told that the military exercise built on a Soviet attack on northern Norway with a huge troop of soldiers and tanks. The Soviets where stronger and where invading Norway through the north. Then the Nato Officers leading the exercise decided to drop a nuclear weapon on the Soviet military - on Norwegian ground!! He was horrified; realising that they where prepared to "defend" a Nato country through bombing their own people with nuclear weapons! The other officers' motivations where that in order to win the war you have to sacrifice some people during battles. Me, being a pacifist did not even believe the military could be that cynical about their own people. In my naivety I thought that the life of people was of higher value than state-territory.

General George Lee Butler (USAF Ret., Former Commander, US Strategic Air Command, October 3, 1996) says: "…nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, military inefficient and morally indefensible."

Evidence submitted to the court: Statement issued on the 5th of December 1996 by 60 Admirals and Generals.

In 1986 I came in contact with the Ploughshares movement. I was inspired by the Gandhian commitment to nonviolence but had learned that the efforts of the peace movement so far, after more than 50 years of struggling against the nuclear bomb had only very small progress. I was impressed by the way the plowshares activists combined a life of support of the poor (shelters and food-kitchens for the homeless), strict nonviolence against all people they met and practical citizens disarmament of nuclear weapons where they always took responsibility for their acts by staying at the site of the peace action.

In the plowshares movement we are using simple household-hammers while doing practical disarmament of weapons. Since 1980 when the first such nonviolent disarmament action took place in US, there has been some 80 disarmament actions like ours. In the first action there were eight people who inspiered by the prophecy of Mika tried to initiate the "beating of swords into ploughshares", i.e. to through hammering on the weapons begin the transformation of them into something proper and useful for human beings, like tools for making food for the starving people. They where jesuit priests, nuns, jews and socialists united together in this act of hope in a time of despair. They, like we, do believe that if the governments are not disarming the murder tools, then we are obliged to do it.

All these disarmament actions are done nonviolent, safe, open and acountable. We did our action in this tradition. When we did our citizens disarmament attempt on the 13^th of September we acted nonviolent (Guidelines, Nonviolent trainings, gifts to workers and others), safe (prior knowledge or area, maps and no nuclear weapons or civil production), open (list of names published, letters to the British government, pressconferences, information meeting with the British consuler in our home town in Sweden) and accoutable (admit all what we did and planned, would have stayed at the area afterwards).

Some say this is "property damage" and a "small group’s" "ignorance of the law". But, that is not true. Trident is not a "property" since it is threatening everything that is of proper use for human needs. It is not "damage" since we did what the owners of Trident would have wished us to do, would they have been correctly informed – and it was not "damage" since what we did was to attempt to "improve" the mass-murder weapon through making it ununsable for mass-murder. And, further, we are not a "small group" since we believe we act on behalf on a silenced majority, in Britian and globally. This was shown during our last court case and prison time – we got about 200 attendants to our trial from some 10 different countries, more than 1 000 letters of support and some 100 visits in prison. These people were from all strands of life: Buddhists, Chatolics, Baptists, solicitors, trade unions, labour party members, feminists, liberals, refugees from wars in the third world, environmentalist groups, old and young. Yes, among them were as well a German judge and the former Mayor of Preston who are supporting us. During my six months in prison I became aware that a huge majority of the prisoners and wardens are supporting us.

What we did, and what other ploughshares activists do, is not an act of "ignorance of the law". In fact we believe we are following the obligation laid upon us by international law and common morality, an obligation to try your best to stop mass-murder, even when it is your government who is organising it and saying it is according to the law of the counry, which it isn’t. But most importantly is not what we believe, but how we do act. We always stay at the place where we did citizens disarmament. We stay to take responsibility, o explain why we did what we did and to show the necessity to act through bringing evidence in front of the court. Our act is the the highest respect of the law, since we are prepared to be tried by it and to challenge the view of the state and military. If we would have disarmed and then run away, we would have ignored the law. Then we would have acted as if we did not have to listen to the counter arguments of others and that we did not have the obligation to be judged by you, Members of the Jury, you who are the representatives of the people.

We stayed to take responsibility, in our hope of the possibility to make us understood, knowing that we then risked years in prison if we were not understood. But since we respect the ideas of democracy and the moral grounds of the law that much, we were prepared to take that risk.

Ploughshares actions struck me as a very democratic form of action, since they respected the life even of those who prepared mass-murder, openly took responsibility and encountered everyone whom where interested into a dialogue. This dialogue did then as well involve the courts where the discussion centred on the legality or illegality of people's own nonviolent disarmament. But as well, of course, the government, as is tried in this campaign against Trident (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 2.7). So far, thou, the government have not been interested. But 33 MP's from Britain has instead signed a declaration of support for the work we are doing. In their view this is perfectly democratic, legal and necessary.

Evidence submitted to the court: Video: In Praise of Disobedience (Have influenced me and describes the movement and people we work together with)

 

I was then 15 years ago and is still using traditional methods of politics as well. I am writing articles, doing research around conflict resolution, nonviolent resistance and democracy. I am doing lobbying of politicians in certain issues, writing letters and making speeches. I am conducting educational workshops and writing educational material, e.g. for nonviolent resistance in Lithuania, conflict resolution in South Africa and environmental actions in Poland. I am involved in dialogue and negotiations with differnt parties in conflicts, e.g. Bofors/Celcius (The main weapon exporting company in Sweden). I am

organising conferences, e.g. a European gathering on nonviolent resistance called Hope & Resistance since 1989-; and organising alternative projects like the Living and Working Community in Hammarkullen 1989- and an ecological village outside Gothenburg where a live in Sweden.

The peace movement has done numerous attempts to get rid of nuclear weapons. Practically all kinds of peaceful methods have been tried (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 1.7). It is in this historical perspective of attempts to stop nuclear weapons you must judge the reasonableness of our action. In our view it was necessary to do after 50 years of attempts with other means, we felt even called upon to do it, from those who suffer daily of the consequences.

I made my first disarmament action of nuclear weapons 1986, when I together with three Germans with boltcutters and household hammers practically disarmed the missile launcher for a Pershing II mid-range nuclear weapon at a US-Nuclear Missile Base outside Stuttgart. After our disarmament action we stayed in the military area for twenty minutes before the guards found us so that we could explain what we had done. That led to our arrest and later, sentence in a German court to prison for "criminal damage". Our act of citizen disarmament was one year later confirmed in the INF treaty, in which the superpowers USA and Soviet Union decided to disarm Pershing II. Paid and skilled workers did the disarmament in industries - obviously not an act anyone would regard as ‘criminal damage’. So, I believe what we did on the 13th of September at the shipyard in Barrow, UK - carrying our household hammers on our way to the fourth Trident submarine - was simply an agreement amongst ourselves to nonviolently, safely, accountably and openly disarm the world’s most powerful terrorist weapon.

The disarmament action I took part in 1986 where made in a situation where thousands of ordinary people from all strands of life came together and made civil disobedience against nuclear weapons. The main action form was blockades. Priests where holding their sermon on the roads at the very entrance where the nuclear weapons where transported for training or war. Ex-Auswitchz prison camp members where blockading in their old striped uniforms. Elderly were blockading sitting on chairs since they did not have strength enough to sit on the road, while saying; "I was part of the complicity of Nazi Germany. I was passive then out of fear for my life. Today I will not once again be silent in the build up of organised mass-murder". I then even witnessed the first trial against one of the judges that made a blockade, dressed in their court room coats. It made a deep impression on me to see and hear one judge saying to another judge that: "We where following the letter of the law during the Nazi times, and by that did not challenge the illegality of the system. We cannot make the same mistake once again".

Also in this massive campaign in the mid-80ies in Germany there where reasonable demands put on the government on how to make the disarmament and by that be able to stop the resistance campaign. They refused and said: "We do not negotiate with criminals!" But some years later when the campaign had reached 3 000 persons who promised to make at least one new action each year as long as the nuclear weapons where still there - negotiations started between the police, US-military, district level government and the activists. But a couple of months later the INF-treaty where signed. Well, to make a long story short, the final result was that the Supreme Court in Germany in 1995 acquitted all thousands of us activists! So sometimes it only takes a few years for the very same courts to change their mind on how to understand what the law says. Today we know that in the trial I saw, back then in 1987, the judge who was charged where on the side of the law, and the judge who precided in court where on the side of illegality. So what is legal or illegal is not only changing in history but is a debate among different judges and courts.Well, during the 80ies and 90ies I as well worked in Sweden against nuclear power stations, weapon export (e.g. cranes for Pershing nuclear weapons).During 1988 I spent a year studying the history of nonviolent resistance at a school outside Gothenburg. I learnt that social movements' resistance played a key role in shaping the democratisation of the Swedish state. The workers movement, the movement for free-religion and freedom of speech and others. The first trade unions where illegal and our PM-to-be Hjalmar Branting where among those put in prison because believing in equal rights, even for the poor and workers.

I learnt at that time that nonviolence does not simply mean to avoid using violence yourself, but to make active resistance to violent systems and tools where others use violence. It is of course important to refuse to take part in or support the military if you are against the idea of using violence to others. But it risks being a selfish act where you escape the problems of organised murder and evil, only taking care you are not part of yourself. It just makes it possible to say: "Not in my name! I am without guilt!" Still, wars and poverty do exist and there are other people who do prepare, plan and excercise for the use of mass-destruction weapons. Again, we need to take an individual and common responsibility for the oppression and violence that do exist. It then becomes our moral duty to stop the starvation and killing of our brothers and sisters in the world. And in trying to do that we need to do the outmost we can, wothout falling in the trap of using violence ourselves. 1989 I moved into a community working with nonviolent resistance and living among the poor (50 % unemployment and refugees from some 100 countries). There we are trying to build up positive alternatives.I travelled fairly extensive, trying to learn and make research about other movements for human rights and solidarity. For example I interviewed activists in Turkey who risked torture for refusing to take part in war and I interviewed those who dared to make nonviolent resistance against the brutal apartheid regime in South Africa, who finally against all odds liberated their country from racial oppression. Again and again I was told by those I met in the Third World: "If you want to help us, then make resistance to the roots of our despair, the military and corporate powers in Europe and USA"!

Today 13 years after 1986 I have done practical disarmament again, the question is if it is right this time also, if I should be regarded as doing the right thing, morally, politically and legally once again. Now we have no Cold War anymore and there has been a reduction of the number of nuclear weapons since then.

I would claim that yes, it was necessary and right once again. Trident is:

1) Not a step in disarmament but an escalation.

2) Not a "last resort" of defence but a dangerous permament threat

3) Not an "insurance against war" but a reason behind other counries arms race (Iraq with its ABC-weapons, India-Pakistan and their development of nuclear weapons)

4) Not a weapon but an Extermination Threat and Power Tool in the hands of the rich and powerful and in the interests of extortion.

 

During the Cold War the existence of nuclear weapons where explained by the idea of the MAD-doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) or what was know as the "Terror-balance". When in the 1990ies the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist - Nato has been expanding, the western countries have started wars and now England is improving its nuclear weapons.

There has been a reduction of the total numbers of NW in the world but what do that mean? We still have some 20 000 nuclear bombs. We still are able and risking the destruction of the earth several times. By the way, do military officers, despite their obvious intelligence, believe it is in fact possible to destroy the world more than just once?We must like Nelson Mandela did when he talked to the UN General Assembly - ask ourselves "…why do they need them anyway!" There is a reason and it is not defence of life and society.There is a link between starvation and Trident that explains a lot.There is an ongoing and undeclared war against the poor - a truth that comes from four simple and indesputable facts:

1) 80 % of the wealth of the earth is owned by 20 % of its population

2) 20 % of the earth's population (1.2 billion) lives in "absolute poverty" - and the proportion is growing (Aid < Dept service)

3) 30 000 children dies every day because of starvation or related sickness, i.e. 11 million each year (1 every 3 sec. Or 2 times the Nazi-Holocaust)

4) The wealth of the 100 wealthiest persons in the world could get rid of the absolute poverty and the death of these children (Possible to avoid).

= There is a ongoing and undeclared war of the absolute rich against the absolute poor.

But why this cynicism? Well, it is the only way if you do not want to share the wealth. There is a combined dilemma facing the rich: of an increasing poverty among a growing poor population - and an increasing wealth among a stagnating (or even declining) rich population. The demands for justice and fair distribution of wealth are very likely to grow. The demands will become more desperate as the time passes and nothing happens. The only proper way to handle this situation is to make a radical wealth redistribution on earth. It might sound painful for us who belong to the richest countries but it is no way around it. Still, I believe that it is only the absolute rich from the richest countries that will loose, all others will win. This is not just a political question about believes or a sad fact or mistake of our world system. Nuclear weapons upholds the unjust world order that kills 30 000 children each single day. Without our military might they could come here today and demand their rights and take the share that is rightly theirs. Since it is possible to prevent, this starvation and poverty is a form of structural genocide or systematic denial of basic human rights (Human Rights which as well are part of the international law that binds us all).We have tried to avert this danger from Trident in a multiple of other ways. We are co-operating with the Trident Ploughshares Campaign in which 140 people like we have pledged, openly in press-conferences and letters to the government and military, to start the disarmament of Trident if the government do not promise to do that. We work in co-operation with a global network of peace-, environmental- and solidarity groups trying to get nuclear weapons disarmed. In the international network Abolition 2000 there are over 1 200 other organisations from some 90 countries, among them 11 Noble Peace Laureates (by March 1999).

Some say nuclear weapons have never been used since 1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. But that is false. Why do we believe states spend several hundred billions constructing tools they do not use?

Vengeance is a Mass-Murder threat, in its very nature (400 Hiroshima's), but more importantly in its specific use as threat against Third World countries (protecting political and economical interests). On this matter I have been deeply impressed by the writings of Prof. Paul Rogers and the researcher Milan Rai.

1) We are clear about the situation: That there is an extreme unequal wealth distribution, a world with absolute poverty together with absolute wealth2) Britain is strongly dependent on trade (its foreign investments is equal to the combined of France, Germany and Italy)

3) SDR produced by the Labour Government clearly states that Trident is suppose to secure interests of some 300 Billion £ by the threat/use of "warning shots" on non-nuclear states (the Rifkind Doctrine). The same is true for the policies of Nato and EC (through its defenceorganisation WEO) in which Trident is an integrated part. This should be understood as a permanent and openly declared threat to all who might undermine the economic investments, trade routes and compaines of Britain or Europe.

4) There exist of course a difficulty to document these cases but there is no lack of well-known examples. One example is Iraq 1990-91 which concerned the oil in Kuwait. The official reason was to stop the Iraqi ocupation of Kuwait. During the crisis the threat from nuclear weapons where very clear and pressing. There where leaked hints to the press (e.g. Daily Mail), public statements (e.g. by PM John Mayor), private warnings (a 200 page plan shown for Iraq was revealed by a Swedish Major) and actual deployment in the area (by something between 8 to 16 nuclear weapons). The result of the conventional war backed up by NW was that the oil remained in the control of British interest and Iraq has since then been harassed because of its assumed possession of NW by those we know have NW and for sure have it hundreds or even thousands times more…Some might argu that nuclear weapons were only used as a threat against Iraqi threats with chemical mass-destruction weapons. But already in 1961 Iraq was threaten when not prepared to accept the British’ organised independence of Kuwait. NW from Britain where deployed at Malta (Aircraft carrier) and at the Gulf (V-Bomber). Nuclear threats has as well been used against for example Guatemala 1972 and Argentina 1982. In all these cases Britain itself has never been threatened! And no mass-murder where present as a threat to other states in these occasions except maybe in Iraq 1991. And even in Iraq 1991 we need to ask ourselves what kind of world we do create if we mass-murder ordinary Iraqi men, women and children as a response to what the dictatorship in Iraq is doing? The right answer must be to disarm all mass-murder weapons where ever they do exist. Since the war UN have been disarming mass-destruction weapons for the first time in history. So it is already i progress in Iraq, when will it happen in Britain and USA?5) Trident is clearly illegal according to international law: ICJ Part 47: "There is no distinction in law between threat and use" and further "Thus it would be illegal for a state to threaten force to secure territory from another state, or to cause it to follow or not to follow certain political or economical paths".

 

Brave judges as well as courts in Europe are already saying that nonviolent disarmament of nuclear weapons are lawful and have acquitted activists doing the same thing as we. See Handbook on Part 5.7

It all means that Trident and the specific submarine, Vengeance, we tried to disarm:

* Is a crime, (At least in its use as threat)

* Is immoral and an immediate threat and danger (At least to the poor in the world)

Our disarmament action is done in co-operation with the Trident Ploughshares Campaign. Its handbook is part of the evidence from the Crown. Members of the Jury, if you check on Part 1, you will find an outline of the campaign and it's motivations. In our entire attempt to disarm Trident we had taken all reasonable caution to be able to do it proper and safe (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 3). We had a map of the complete interior of the submarine (See Part 3.2) so that we knew what to disarm safely. We had decided to disarm the tracks on where the submarine would be rolled out a week later on the day of the public launch. If we would have reached the submarine we had agreed on disarming the communication equipment on the tower or the front part, which have a weaker material because of radio communication. If we would have reached the interior of the submarine we in the same way had already decided on where to disarm, and most importantly where we would NOT disarm. We knew that the submarine where not already equipped with nuclear weapons but still we avoided to do anything to missile tubes. We also avoided the rear altogether since that is where the nuclear reactor is.

We had decided to make a decisive amount of practical disarmament to make sure the submarine would not be able to launch nuclear weapons. Yet we are aware that what we do can in some time be repaired if we are not understood and therefore our action would mainly be symbolic. We are just ordinary citizens, and we can only do so much. But that is fine, it should also not be possible for a small group to enforce their own views on others. We need a democratic dialogue and decision where we together might understand the illegality and destructive nature of nuclear weapons. We might be wrong in our understanding of how to disarm nuclear weapons and what is needed to be done. We need to be open to what that democratic discussion leads to. From our limited understanding our aim has simply been to practically do what we are able to do and by that as well inspire others to follow our example and challenge the powers that uphold this dangerous injustice. In our preparation we have made all our decisions by consensus and have had extensive preparation meetings from May until September 1998. In this preparation the practical planning has only been a minor problem. Our real problem has been and still is; how can we be able to dare to make such a thing? Our solution has been to create as much support as possible. We have recieved a lot of support from people in Sweden, England and other countries. During our prison time we got more than 1 000 letters of support and 100 visits. After our release from the last trial, when a part of the jury-members where convinced it might be possible that we acted legally, we have met up with a few of these supporters. We have recieved support from Catholic Priests, Trade union organisers, Buddist nuns, ex-prisoners, prison wardens, feminsts and a lot of others.

Nonviolence and Safety Guidelines govern our group and the Campaign against Trident,

see Part 2:3 in the Handbook.

If we would have reached the submarine

*We would have prevented an ongoing and serious crime against humanity and the peace (under International law, National British law and moral principles)

*and we would have taken away 25 % of the NW-capacity of Britain (which would have lead to less risk of accidents, mistakes, war, ecological destruction and threats to people - i.e. a reduced immediate danger of an amount bigger than what was used during W.W.II!)

Not bad for a small group of normal citizens trying to take responsibility!

Trying to show the dangers of Trident, the reasonableness of our act, our character and background, our intentions and influential persons/thoughts/experiences.

What I said last time in May:

With respect Your Honour, the ruling made on our defence build on several incorrect assumptions on the nature of our defence.

If I could call witnesses and show evidence on following areas I can prove our innocence (I have several willing and alternative witnesses to call when allowed to. I therefore do not call them now by name).

There are nine elements as far as I can see that are needed to be proven to show that we are not guilty of any crime. Probably each one of them is enough to convince of our innocence.

Your Honour I request the right to call witnesses in order to prove;

HIROSHIMA

140 000 dead

It is said we all know - Do we?

If - really - we would fight every day against the threat posed against our children

Hiroshima was not only an explosion hotter than the sun that made beautiful houses flat and human bodies to steam,

But miles away, glass-windows where scattered in the air, firestorms hunting the ground - which lead to burn-damages in thousands (where modern hospitals manage to take care of some 5-10 burnt patients each…)

Hiroshima means decades of silent, invisible, tasteless radiation that poison thousands of our fellow human beings, the children born today 50 years later.

I have met survivors, yet

I

Do not understand; do not know what Hiroshima really stands for

I try to forget and close my eyes

If

We really understood, we would not support, pay taxes for or be passive

in our acceptance of the construction and threat of

400 Hiroshima's - the Mass-Murder-Machine Trident.

If

We really understood we would understand its criminal nature, its threat to

the very idea of society and humankind

Having said all this I still think that we DO understand (deep inside there is a silent knowledge)

But we are too afraid or isolated to confess it

We dare not see, we lie to ourselves - and turn Blind

We dare not take responsibility, cant take the burden of the consequences, follow orders and does our individual job and nurture our own home of safety - so we turn Obedient

We turn Blind and we turn Obedient, out of fear for the reality

Blind Obedience

is our real enemy, which makes production of mass-murder-tools possible,

Blind Obedience turns the absurd, unthinkable nature of mutual assured mass-murder into the logical and natural world order of today.

The worst horrors in history;

the Nazi-Holocaust concentration camps,

the Soviet Gulag prison camps

and the Capitalist Slavery Colonialism

which each of them lead to the death and suffering of millions

- they are no sudden explosions of evil or chaos,

but effective, well organised, planned by government administrations,

carried out by state officers,

built and run by ordinary workers,

in blind obedience, to their culture, state, law,

taken for granted at the time,

seen as abnormal or sick afterwards, by us looking from a distance at horrors others commited

and every surviving culture has said the same: "Never again! We are different!"

These horrors of history and of blind obedience are indeed abnormal and sick,

But dismissing them as a result from abnormal or sick people, makes us loose the truth,

The truth that it always was ordinary citizens, like you and I,

who run the organised and criminal mass-murder in an everyday life,

That it was possible through Blind Obedience

That it was possible through the lack of individual responsibility for each other

Through the lack of honesty towards ourselves of the true nature of what we do

It is an everyday-effective mass-murder - an undeclared war of the rich against the poor. Nuclear weapons are a central part of our self-deceptive lies trying to hold on to possessions that are in fact not ours.

Despite maybe having good motives World War II made us to develop the nuclear bomb. Then the enemy was fascism. Despite maybe having good motives the Cold War led us into an arms race and an insane safety correctly called "MAD" (Mutual Assured Destruction). Then the enemy was communism.

Now, living in the time after the Cold War, with no obvious enemy and no reasons to keep nuclear weapons, we still keep enough to destroy the world several times, several thousands of nuclear bombs. Today when even the military is saying there are no enemy threatening us anymore, we want to keep the nuclear bomb among us.

The obvious question pressing upon us is - why do we still keep them? Have we grown used to the illusionary safety of mass-destruction weapons? Have peace finally become the mutual threat of extermination?

My simple point is that the plain possession of the nuclear bomb makes all good intentions without serious meaning, since having the bomb changes us as a person and the culture our society. Threatening our brothers and sisters becomes a way of life. The threat of mass-destruction, of extermination of another society's life, culture and existence is a poison eating itself into our minds and culture. The result is a culture that celebrates Death-tools as Gods, Gods of Metal, a culture that with their priests names a Trident submarine "Corpus Christi", the body of Christ, as they have done in the US.

Trident is used in the same way as a pointed gun against somebody's head is a way of using that gun during a robbery. Its primarily use is not to kill people but to threaten to do it if necessary, if people are not obedient enough, to the interest of the armed gangsters. If the gun happens to be the strongest gun in the world then the mere threat probably is the most effective use of the gun. If we are the ones protected of the nuclear weapon-gun we might get a feeling of security, especially if during a long time the pointed gun has not harmed us. We just do not see the desperate hate growing among the excluded and threatened, how hatred is inherited from generation to generation, in refugee camps, in daily hopeless poverty. How they are hold down by our threat, our defence of stolen property and wealth.

The means to destroy have taken control over us. Destruction has become our source of pride, community and safety. Evil possesses us. We where fighting against Nazi-extermination camps and ended up protecting ourselves with flying extermination-tools. We where fighting against Soviet Gulag-prison camps and ended up on an earth imprisoned by "mutual assured destruction" - or in plain English, the danger of the extinction of humanity.

We have, in the words of Gandhi, conquered Hitler with Hitlerism.

The bomb creates victims and villains, their roles and their mentalities. All are losers. Either you loose your life or you loose your humanity. It creates a vicious circle that possesses all of us which need to be broken. The dignity of people is destroyed and we start to lie to ourselves and others to hide the truth. Nuclear missiles becomes so called "Peace Keepers". The threat to kill the whole world becomes so called "Defence".

We are murdering for life and creating terror threats for "Justice" and "Truth". Committing Genocide for "Democracy".

War becomes Peace Keeping and our attempted Nonviolent Disarmament of weapons of Mass-Destruction becomes "Conspiracy to commit Criminal Damage".

Members of the jury, Your Honour;

On the 13th of September 1998 we tried to practically disarm the Extermination-tool Trident Vengence. Our act of responsibility led us to 6 months in prison and to this trial. I am not happy being in this trial but I see it as important since we now has a possibility to find out if nonviolent disarmament of NW are legal or not. It is up to you members of the jury to decide, up to you now to take responsibility for these mass-murder weapons, as they are made in the name of all of us. It is up to you to take responsibility for your judgement.

I do believe sincerely and honest that what we did was not only morally and politically justified, but as well legal, according to laws valid here in Britain.

We have during the trial presented a judicial defence and a moral-political defence.

A) Judicial Defence

International law:

We have shown that the use and threat of Trident is illegal according to international law. For me as a pacifist I am against all kinds of use of weapons. But that is not why I think you should agree with me that we where justified. I am aware that pacifists are a small minority and that the law is not against war in general. In fact international law has developed from the interest to regulate the excesses of war and through that to legitimise war as such. So I am not here to say that you should aquitt us because we are pacifists or because that the law says all state-ordered murdering is wrong. I have just explained my believes against violence to make it clear how and why I did as I did in this case. And in this special case there do exist a legal defence,

But I do believe firstly that NW probably are illegal in themselves, as possessions, purely from the fact of its mass-destruction character. Secondly I am, after carefully studying the subject, convinced that the threat and the use of nuclear weapons are illegal.

500 judges in Germany agree with us. 20 of them had the courage to risk their professional future by blockading NW-exercises, which lead them to court, in the same way as we stand in front of you today. They where sentenced as where thousands others from different strands of society. 1995 they where all, like me, acquitted in the Supreme Court in Germany. 1996 declared ICJ that the use and threat of NW where (in general) illegal. Acquittals have since then happened in courts in Scotland, Belgium and Germany. This trial is the first to judge on the ICJ-ruling in a Crown Court in England. So you are by your judgement deciding on the future.

The international law is (basically) the same during this period of 1980-1999. The law is binding on all states and citizens. But courts and judges have different views. Not all courts and judges have the courage to live with the moral and political consequences to say that disarmament is legal and NW illegal. Instead they say, "I can't believe that the Government can do crimes. They are the ones who make the law"

In Amtsgericht in Stuttgart peace workers where accused of jointly committing property damage to a NW-installation, i.e. a similar case to ours. On October 28th 1996 Judge Wolf is acquitting all of them saying, "The court shares this view about the illegality of nuclear armaments under public international law".

National British law

Firstly, international law is binding in Britain. Secondly, there exist a "lawful excuse" to do disarmament acions, or "damage" if you see it as that.

We did have a "lawful excuse" and since it is enough to be found not guilty according to the law we are accused of breaking, we have in fact not been breaking that law at all.

We had a lawful excuse because:

1) We had a genuine and honest belief that we where preventing a massive danger to human life.

2) The danger was immediate (a week until the launch and when it would be armed it would be a threat and too difficult to stop), massive (threatening the lives of thousands or millions of persons) and permanent (openly and known threat that could happen at any time)

3) It was practically possible to prevent the crime and danger, if we would not have been wrongfully arrested at an early stage, i.e. it was not simply a political demonstration.

4) It was reasonable since there where no alternative (Negotiations and criminal charging of the government had not been taken serious) and the danger imminent (it would have been to late after the war!)

5) It was a proportionate act since it was nonviolent, open, accountable and safe; i.e. there was no threat to society or life.

The Crown has only proved we where there, intended to disarm Trident, where acting peacefully and friendly and where taking full responsibility. The security officers do not know anything about Trident or the laws that says that Trident are illegal. The security officers were not aware that it was there legal duty to prevent crimes against humanity and the peace according to international law. That was why they wrongfully arrested us. The police have revealed that there have been no investigations of the crimes alleged by us, despite that we even served a written indictment where we stated the crimes and laws. And, as you have seen, no criminal investigations are likely to take place as long as we do not force them to take these issues seriously. The peace movement has repeately tried to make the courts initiate criminal proceedings against nuclear weapon governments but so far no court has had the courage to take it serious, decpite the massive evidences available and advice from judicial experts.

Further, during this trial the Crown has not even attempted, as is its legal duty, to show there was NO lawful excuse in this case. The Crown has not called any witnesses to show that Trident did NOT pose an immediate danger or constituted a crime.

Members of the jury, you should be clear about that our evidence of the crime that Trident pose was decided by this court to be something for you not to see, declared by this sole judge to be "irrelevant". You where because of that not able to hear evidence on specific occasions of dangerous or criminal threat with Trident in breach of International Law. This evidence should have been brought forward to you to judge its validity by e.g. a Commander of the UK Air Force and Navy, an engineer who where part of constructing Trident for 30 years, a professor from Bradford Peace Studies and the Lord Advocat of Scotland.

His Honour will tell you the law when directing you before you start to deliberate together on your verdict. He will try to do that despite the complicated matters present in this case. It is the first time the ICJ-Opinion is tested in a Crown Court in England; an Opinion made by the highest court in the world and which took ICJ a long time of looking into evidence from several experts. This court wants to dismiss the ICJ-ruling on the illegality of nuclear weapons without ANY witnesses from experts. At least for me that does not sound very wise. But maybe that is because of my poor knowledge of the law?

I am convinced His Honour will make an honest interpretation of the laws and I wish him the courage and integrity to disregard the reactions from political-economical and military powers when directing you.

BUT - Members of the jury, whatever His Honour says, YOU are the centre of the court and the verdict. You are the moral voice of the people - The Moral Judges, deciding supremely on what facts or evidence that counts.

In the words of the Crown from her opening speech; You need to be absolutely SURE we did NOT have lawful excuse to find us guilty. If you have the slightest doubt, that we maybe had a lawful excuse, you have to find us not guilty. (That does not mean you have to agree with us, it is the POSSIBILITY of an excuse that counts).

I think the law supports us – but courts might or might not. In any case the law, courts understanding of the law and democracy are in a permanent historical change. What is morally right or wrong is not. Mass-murder must be wrong. If the courts do not recognise it then the courts needs to change their view.

Martin Luther King used nonviolent resistance against discrimination of black people and Mahatma Gandhi used it against the colonial rule of India. They both succeeded to liberate their people. The suffragtes in Britain brook the law to defend the rights of women, the first trade unions brook the law to defend the right of workers. Their actions are now recognised by the law and anyone doing the same in a similar situation today would recive the support from courts.

The Ploughshares movement is a part of the tradition of nonviolent and responsible resistance. The Crown has in all these mentioned historical cases been on the wrong side and is threatening us with years in prison, like the ones before us were threaten - why? Was it because the Crown tried to protect justice and the needs of society and the individual and universal human rights? Or, was it in order to protect the existing order, in self-interest? It is up to you to decide, members of the jury.

B) Moral Defence

We have as well a moral defence in where we say even IF there would not exist enough of a clear legal right for us to disarm Trident, it does exist a Moral Duty to protect our brothers and sisters from mass-murder. It is simply too urgent and too important to be just a question of the formal and present existing law. Sometimes the law lags behind the moral demands of society and its people.

We do NOT advocate a disrespect of the law. There is a need for a justification or excuse from the circumstances to be able to say that - yes, this is something right to do. There does not exist any automatic duty to follow or break a certain law, to be obedient or disobedient. This principle is even accepted in the law itself, formulated in the Nuremberg Principles and the Tokyo Tribunal (where it is said there exist a duty on citizens to make resistance against their own government when it takes part in crimes against humanity or the peace). We need to make a moral judgement from case to case. But that moral judgement can't be made by us or by any individual citizen. That is why you are sitting here in this court - You are the moral judges.

The judicial system is a rule-system that exists to protect the needs of society and life; i.e. the law is built on a moral legitimisation from the start until the end.

The legal role of the jury is to be the moral judges. There is a reason why the court consists of ordinary citizens like you. It is because it is suggested that we need a non-judicial judgement or verdict, a moral voice that cares for the basic interests of law (the needs of society and individuals). It all means that for the judicial system to be just and fair, to be judicially moral, it needs the non-judicial judgement, morality. You are in the court to safeguard from the greatest of injustice, from extreme misjudgements - to protect us from the few but so dangerous laws, prosecutors or judges who threatens the moral ground of society.

There will be NO explanation or motivation asked from you Members of the jury when you give your judgement. The jury in Liverpool Crown Court had the courage to acquit the ploughshares after disarming an aeroplane going to war in Indonesia. That jury did not have to explain why they gave the verdict they did, as they are protected by the law to keep that for themselves. Today after the terrible killings in East Timor and after that the British government had to stop all arms export to Indonesia and finally admitted that the fighter-planes going to Indonesia in fact are used to kill East Timorese, a fact they denied during the trial - this jury should feel proad to have listen to their own conscious instead of the Crown or the judge. In a similar way a big part of the jury in the Preston Crown Court the last time we were on trial, had the courage to say we were not guility, despite the Crown saying Trident is of no threat to innocent humans and despite the judge saying we did not have any valid legal defence.

It is soley in your power to decide if what we did was right or wrong. If we are declared guilty you should know we risk a maximum of ten years in prison just because we tried to take our responsibility. We have already spent six months of our lives in prison, away from our country and from those we love. Our future is in your hands.

I refuse to believe that;

-the end of the world/humanity

-mass-murder of millions

-poisoning of our children

-global starvation/poverty

could be LEGAL!

If you Members of the jury would declare us guilty you would legalise mass-murder and criminalise our hope and the future.

I am firmly convinced that NW are;

-illegal extermination tools

-immoral threats against the 30 000 children dying of starvation each day

-corruptive

-dangerous

-undemocratic

Which justifies practical disarmament

Members of the jury,

I will finish of by saying that you do not have to agree with us on everything, it is basically a question if you think we MAYBE have right, which would lead you to say we are not guilty and which would make you give justice and peace a chance.

Your Honour,

The jury found us guilty. We have failed to make ourselves understood.

I know your legal duty is to impose a punishment on us now, to frighten us and others, not to disarm mass-destruction-tools in Britain.

Despite knowing that I do appeal to your moral conscious, asking you to refuse punishing us - let us free!

BUT IF you still are committed to protect nuclear weapons and governmental crimes, you should be aware

only prison could stop me and then only for a time.

Indeed I am not a fool, I am afraid of the punishment, but I simply can not do otherwise

than to follow my moral and legal duty and protect my brothers and sisters. Punishment can put me in fear but not convince me you are right. Hiting someone only proves you have run out of good and convincing arguments.

BE SURE I will continue, prison do not deter or change my conviction. I will continue inside if necessary and when I eventually am released, which I will be, sooner or later whatever you decide, I will as before continue to;

Inspire

Educate

Organise

Research

Support

Others

to make practical disarmament of extermination-tools,

In a nonviolent, open, accountable and safe manner - as before. I already even have concrete plans to make new disarmament actions against Swedish weapon export. And besides that, if necessary, I am prepared to return to Britain in the future if Trident has not been legally disarmed by all the actions the Trident Ploughshares Campaign is doing right now as we speak.

I can not say now when this wil happen. Not because it is secret or because it is not necessary to act now immediately. The day when I find the courage and support again, I will do it myself once more, the third time around. It is unfortunately necessary to do everyday, but I am just an imperfect normal human being.

But I can see no point to go back to VSEL now if I am free, since Trident is gone.

With all respect to the Crown, the Members of the jury and Your Honour;

Your arguments have so far not convinced me I am wrong legally or morally.

Several hundreds of other judges agree with us. Other courts understand the international law quite different from you, in fact the highest court in the world, the International Court of Justice, do.

I am convinced a jury or court consisting of the victims of nuclear terrorism and poverty,

would have acquitted us.

I still believe, in absence of serious counter-arguments against my belief, that Trident is appallingly;

Illegal

Immoral

Dangerous

Corruptive

Undemocratic

Punishment will not change that. I will continue to follow the law and disarm mass-murder machines like Trident.

Your Honour, thank you for listening patiently, despite believing my arguments to be irrelevant. That shows respect which gives me hope for the future despite this sad result of our dialogue this time around.

The Crown has all our material from the action (tools, gifts, literature on civil disobedience, statements, the international law and nuclear weapons, symbols etc). Among these things is the complete TP2000 handbook.

Barrister (for Annika Spalde):

Barrister on international law (for Stellan Vinthagen):

Solicitors: Gareth Pierce and Alastair Lyon, BM Birnberg and CO, London.

McKenzie-friend (for Annika Spalde):

McKenzie-friend (for Stellan Vinthagen):

Resources:

Fast Track to Zero Nuclear Weapons, The Middle Powers Initiative, by Robert D. Green, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Suggested Evidence by our group:

Solicitors preparation pack: Bundle A (Information on nuclear weapons etc) and Bundle B (Judicial Precendences).

Statement issued on the 5th of December 1996 by 60 Admirals and Generals.

Letter from Lord Advocat of Scotland, Murray about Trident and nuclear weapons.

Video: In Praise of Disobedience, 1989? SVT, Sweden. (Till Olydnadens Lov), about the US-plowshares movement.