UK climate activists fear case delays could cost them right to jury trial | Trial by jury
Climate activists fear delays in their cases could mean they lose their right to a trial in front of a jury; Jurors are generally more likely to acquit them than the judge.
As long ago as 2021, scores of defendants on trial for protesting have had their trials repeatedly postponed, and they worry that government changes limiting the right to a jury trial could take effect when their cases are heard.
Juries have the absolute right to acquit according to their conscience. The government has proposed removing the right for defendants accused of so-called dual offenses to choose whether to be tried in the crown court or magistrates’ court before their peers.
Among those who fear they may be affected are dozens of people charged with “interfering with essential national infrastructure” under the Public Order Act in relation to Just Stop Oil’s slow march protests in 2023.
One of them, Adem Ay, 45, of Hackney Wick, east London, who will stand trial in July next year, said: “I want to talk to people [jurors]Actually, my only hope is anyone who can do a smell test on whether or not this is fair, because there are so many restrictions on how much we can talk about our motivations, how much we can talk about climate change. Some juries found the protesters innocent even though there was no legal defense.”
The jury trial changes, which will be applied retroactively to cases currently in the system, are expected to go into effect in 2028. Defendants whose cases have already been postponed are worried there could be further delays that mean the changes will impact them.
Ay, who is representing himself, told Southwark crown court that he had argued against the delay, citing the possibility of losing his right to a jury trial. He claimed the judge was understanding and said he was “surprised more people weren’t protesting in the streets.”
Dawn Gordon, 22, from Belfast, who will go on trial in the middle of next year over the slow marches, said: “With a jury trial, people can say it’s actually justified because we’re going to have heatwaves this year, it could be the hottest year on record again and we’re facing the next super El Niño and if I had my jury trial next year people would feel that.”
Under the changes, even if judges decide that a case should be heard in the crown court, the case can be heard without a jury unless the court considers that the defendant would face a prison sentence of more than three years if convicted.
This could affect Ludi Simpson, 73, of Bradford, who is due to stand trial in spring next year for allegedly causing criminal damage for throwing soup over a Vincent van Gogh painting of sunflowers in 2024, an hour after two others were jailed for a similar protest in 2022.
“Judges, like juries, are not your peers,” Simpson said. “The judiciary will have no sympathy for the reason, the context and the situation in the world.”
Amy Pritchard, 41, from London, faces two trials next year for allegedly causing a public nuisance in relation to the Insulate Britain protests in 2021. “It’s been on my mind for a long time,” he said. “In an environment where we have absolutely lost faith in our justice system and government, some of the democratic power that people have to intervene in the justice system is [being] was taken away.”
A Just Stop Oil spokesman said the proposed changes would “mean Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil supporters with outstanding cases will lose the chance to explain their actions to a jury”. “This will mean more guilty verdicts and more prison sentences for people who take action to limit climate catastrophe by opposing the fossil fuel death cult.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said of the defendants’ concerns: “This is not true; most low-level protest offenses, including cases arising from previous Just Stop Oil protests, are currently heard in magistrates’ courts.”
