Legal move to crack down on climate protesters

Afua Hirsch and John Vidal
The Guardian, Thursday 18 December 2008

The attorney general is considering asking the courts to clamp down on high-profile, direct-action protests on issues such as climate change, the Guardian can exclusively reveal.
Six Greenpeace protesters, who were acquitted in September of criminal damage for their demonstration at the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent, now face having their case referred to the court of appeal in what is believed to be an attempt to increase convictions for direct-action protests.
The six were acquitted after they successfully persuaded a jury that the demonstration, in which they scaled a 200 metre chimney in an attempt to paint Gordon Bin It , was intended to prevent greater damage to property from the imminent threat of global warming.
The defence centred particularly on plans for the new-generation station - Kingsnorth II - planned for the site.
The jury accepted the defence of lawful excuse after an eight-day trial which included evidence from the ecologist Zac Goldsmith and Professor Jim Hansen, the Nasa scientist regarded as one of the world's leading climate change experts.
Jurors were shown maps of the Kent region depicting coastal areas where property and land would be at risk of being submerged by rising sea levels and heard from a representative of Greenland's Inuit community who described watching their villages "eroding into the sea".
Although the verdict received international acclaim, described in the New York Times this week as one of 2008's "ideas of the year" and endorsed by former US vice-president Al Gore, prosecutors are believed to have been angered at the acquittal. According to a letter seen by the Guardian, the attorney general is considering using her power to refer cases to the court of appeal to "clarify a point of law". It is believed to be an attempt to limit the circumstances in which protesters could rely on "lawful excuse".
If successful, the referral could prevent juries finding in favour of such "lawful excuse" arguments. Prosecutions of protesters against GM crops, incinerators, new roads and nuclear, chemical and arms trade companies have all collapsed after defendants argued that they had acted according to their consciences and that they were trying to protect property or prevent a greater crime.
Should the "lawful excuse" defence prove to be unusable by protesters, Britain can expect many more environmental and peace activists to be convicted - something which could backfire against a government accused of drastically curtailing the right to protest in the last five years.
Prosecutors were understood to be furious that the jury acquitted the Kingsnorth protesters, arguing that allowance for demonstrations did not extend to breaking the law.
But a lawyer familiar with the case told the Guardian: "Juries are a reflection of the public. In this case the jury spent two days carefully thinking about more than a week's evidence and they came to a conclusion. This is a ... sinister effort to undermine their decision".
The attorney general's action is also being criticised as at odds with government rhetoric on tackling climate change. "Ed Milliband wanted a social movement on climate change but this government doesn't seem to trust members of the public such as jurors to actually decide what's right and wrong on climate change," said Ben Stewart, one of the acquitted protesters. "The verdict was a damning indictment on government policy - after reading it the government should be dismantling plans for Kingsnorth II not trying to dismantle the jury system."
Another lawyer familiar with the case told the Guardian: "If the government think it is wrong for protesters to rely on lawful excuse they should pass an amendment to the law through parliament. They don't have courage to do that - instead they are making a very significant attempt to interfere with the jury's decision."