Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

[defendandprotect]

Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Thursday, 11 September 2008

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.


Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.



http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

[flvegan]

1. I may be alone, but...Let the Monkeywrenching begin!

That would be some serious case law in the US. Would totally trash the AETA as well, I'd bet.

Congrats, Greenpeace lawyers. That's some fine damn work you've done. My hat is off to you.

[shadowknows69]

7. Not alone

If it comes down to industry or our species surviving? Call me crazy but I stand with the human race.

[hootinholler]

2. Considering that the 'damage' was not operational damage this is good.

Had they crippled the plant, I might not be so mellow about it.

-Hoot

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. the the damage was NOT to prevent greater harm

and therefor they should make them either pay for the damage repairs or lock them away. the minute we let people start damaging private property to 'prevent greater harm' in this sort of way is the minute that your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are toast. next we'll see trashing automobiles that are 'too big' and houses that are 'dangerous to the environment' and well, you get the point...

sP

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Oh, boy Britain is going to have some interesting times!

Although, I don't know if I'd characterize graffiti "damage", necessarily.

[dccrossman]

4. K & R

Wow, that is incredible. Excellent job by their attorneys on jury selection, I'm sure, but still, incredible!

[riverdeep]

5. There's a slippery slope here, if ever I saw one.

Why, the next thing you know, communities will start to revoke corporate charters when they create havoc.

[shadowknows69]

8. Wouldn't that be awful?

Accountability is a four letter word.

[shadowknows69]

6. No shit. I'm loving that jury!!!!

That is what is called real justice. Our planet is more important than anyone's bloody business.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. This is as bad as a pro-life jury acquitting an abortion-clinic bomber.

This scares the hell out of me.

The job of a jury is not to pass moral judgement, it's to uphold the law.

Whether there was a moral justification for the crime - or rather, whether the jury think there was a moral justification for the crime - should not be relevant.

I need two things from the legal system, above all others. I need to know that I won't be convicted if I don't break the law, and I need to know that I can rely on the protection of the law.

This verdict sets a precedent that shakes both of these.

The way to oppose bad behaviour is to change the law, not to enforce it selectively.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. scares the hell out of me too...

this BS about preventing greater harm can be extrapolated to all sorts of acts that would otherwise just be destruction of private or government property...

this was a BAD BAD verdict for the UK and heaven forbid something like this ever happens in the US.

sP

[bananas]

13. It's happened here - a famous case with President Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy Carter

"Amy Carter later became known for her political activism, participating in a number of sit-ins and protests during the 1980s and early 1990s, aimed at changing U.S. foreign policy towards South Africa and Central America. Along with activist Abbie Hoffman and 13 others, she was arrested during a 1987 demonstration at the University of Massachusetts for protesting CIA recruitment there. She was acquitted of all charges in a well-publicized trial in Northampton, Massachusetts. Attorney Leonard Weinglass, who defended Abbie Hoffman in the Chicago Seven trial in the 1960s, utilized the necessity defense, successfully arguing that CIA involvement in Central America and other hotspots were equivalent to trespassing in a burning building.<4> This occurred during Amy's sophomore year at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Later, she left Brown due to unrelated and unpublicized issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Carter

[bananas]

16. April 2008: HIV-Positive Man Wins Acquittal In Texas' First Cannabis Medical Necessity Defense

http://www.natlnorml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7568&wtm_format=print

HIV-Positive Man Wins Acquittal In Texas’ First Cannabis Medical Necessity Defense -- NORML Legal Committee Member Leads Defense

April 3, 2008 - Amarillo, TX, USA

Amarillo, TX: NORML Legal Committee member Jeff Blackburn won an acquittal for a man charged with possession of marijuana, by successfully raising a medical necessity defense, believed to be the first to be accepted in Texas courts.

Defendant Tim Stevens, 53, had never been in legal trouble until Amarillo police arrested him for possessing less than 4 grams of marijuana. Mr. Stevens†is HIV-positive and uses medical marijuana in conjunction with his anti-viral medications.

Defense expert Dr. Steve Jenison, Medical Director of the Infectious Diseases Bureau for the Department of Health in New Mexico, carried the day with his testimony. Dr. Jenison detailed his success with the New Mexico medical marijuana program in treating severe symptoms, particularly nausea and cyclical vomiting, that plague many HIV / AIDS and cancer patients—for many of whom no effective medicinal alternative exists. "…was a dynamite witness," Blackburn said. "All of this evidence came together and made for a solid defense case -- one strong enough for us to get an instruction to the jury that they should acquit if they had a reasonable doubt about medical necessity."

"We prepared a very extensive presentation about the medical benefits of marijuana," Blackburn continued. "We relied on clearly established scientific studies and approaches, all of which show that there are distinct benefits derived from the use of inhaled marijuana." The jury was out only eleven minutes before reaching a unanimous verdict of "not guilty." County attorney Scott Brumley called the verdict "unfortunate." "I respect the jury's verdict. ... That doesn't mean I agree with it," he said.

Blackburn, who also serves as chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, which seeks to identify and exonerate innocent people who have been mistakenly convicted and imprisoned, believes that this victory can be replicated in other states as well. "Nearly all states have some variant of the old common law necessity defense."

[defendandprotect]

20. It's merely putting corps at risk for destruction of nature --

as well they should be --

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. like i said upthread...

this could EASILY be extended to individuals if allowed to continue...hope you don't live in a house with central heat and air...someone may decide that it is bad for the environment (or they just don't like it or you) and take action...

what a stupid way to look at things...

sP

[bananas]

12. This was not jury nullification, the jury fully upheld the law

[bananas]

15. Britain dropped it's charges against Katherine Gun for the same reason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=171006&mesg_id=171067

[defendandprotect]

19. Corp control of human life is BOTH immoral and criminal --

+ Un-Constitutional --

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. That's not really a meaningful statement, I fear.

But it's fairly clear that the factory vandalised was not doing anything in defiance of the laws or constitution as interpreted by the courts.

And that's what "criminal" means - not "something I think should be illegal" or "something I think violates the spirit of the constitution".

You may be on stronger ground with "immoral" - it's hard to be sure, though, because "corp control of human life" is a meaninglessly vague statement.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. The jury was persuaded that the factory was causing harm

And found that the lawful excuse defense was a valid application of the law.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. I don't think they did.

From what I've heard, it appeared that the jury decided on their own bats *not* to apply the law, because they thought that the moral thing to do was not to, rather than deciding that the lawful defence excuse was a valid application of it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. It's nice that you've heard that

The linked article very clearly states that the defense argued on a point of law and the jury agreed with the defense.

It's not at all ambiguous about that, unlike your mysterious sources.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. I think you're being deliberately disingenuous.

The defence was clearly spurious; it was intended to give the jury and excuse to follow their consciences and acquit, rather than to convince them that what was done was legal.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. The defense was based on law

As is clearly stated in the article.

You don't like how the jurors construed the law. That's your problem. But saying that this was an appeal to some judgment outside the law is manifestly untrue.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. This is part of the law

They bought the defense argument, which used the law.

That you didn't like their interpretation of the law doesn't mean it wasn't a law-based decision. It very clearly was. Or do you not understand this paragraph:

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. I think you're deliberately confusing an excuse with a reason.

It's fairly clear that the whole "lawful excuse" nonsense was not meant to convince the jury that the law, correctly interpreted, would lead to an acquittal; rather, it was meant to give them an excuse to follow their consciences instead of the law, without it being to obvious that that was what they were doing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. It's not my fault that you don't like the outcome or the law

[bean fidhleir]

35. You don't know Britain's law very well, do you.

You should look up "Bushnell's Case", in which the Lord Chief Justice refused to allow jurors to be punished for returning a decision the trial judge didn't like. Ever since then, in Britain and any country with a legal system descended from Britain's, jurors are the sole judge of both the facts of the case and whether the law should be enforced at all.

[wvbygod]

14. How does painting a name on a chimney prevent damage?

Exactly how does that work?

[Dogtown]

17. It makes the uninformed

or deliberately stupid masses *think*.

A=B
B=C
A=C


Not that hard to follow, is it?

[kansasblue]

18. GREENPEACE

rocks

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Great ruling!

[mike_c]

22. YES!

Of course, in the US they use terrorism enhancements against environmental activists. Good to see someone else has their priorities straight!

[riverdeep]

23. I don't know.

While I am sympathetic to the cause of these people, I have to ask myself honestly, 'What would I think if it was a cause I was totally against?'. The law has to be blind, even though we know it sneaks a peek at the rich.

One could argue, if the bulk of scientists are right, that systematic acts in defense of the earth is actually a form of self-defense. And survival trumps all of man's laws for any organism. However right that might be, or convoluted it may be, I just don't know if it'd be effective in large scale change. They may seem like heroes waking the sleeping passengers that an iceberg is coming, but more likely they would just be told to shut up so the passengers can go back to sleep.

[crispini]

28. Very interesting.

[caraher]

36. I'd much rather see corporations held legally accountable

I can't celebrate a few activists with clever lawyers going free as a great advance. A great advance would be putting CEOs on trial for threatening the lives of my children and grandchildren. We need to criminalize exactly the kind of calculated irresponsibility that brings the greatest rewards to the profiteers leading us to disaster.

Greenpeace might be bringing that day closer, but this is at the very best a personal victory for a few people, and potentially a longer-term defeat (through the potential for backlash and marginalization of global warming activists as petty vandals by the corporate media).