COURT PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE AGAINST THE EIGHT DEFENDANTS WHO STOPPED WORK AT THE ATOMIC WEAPONS FACTORY AT BURGHFIELD.
Julia Mercer, Jan Jones, Brian Jones Jane Picksley, Chris Bluemell, Awel Irene, Catriona Macneill and Marie Walsh all members of Trident Ploughshares, an organisation dedicated to non-violent action against nuclear weapons, blocked the entrances to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Burghfield on 24 October 2018, severely disrupting the work of this illegal and dangerous weapons factory for the day. They are charged with obstructing the public highway.
The public gallery was packed, and a banner presence was maintained outside the court building throughout the day. A group of the protestors, supported by CND, had marched to the Court from Wallingford over the Easter weekend.
Proceedings rapidly degenerated into farce and the case was adjourned until July with no real progress having been made.
The trial got off to a shaky start when defence barrister Jessica Jones failed to appear. It transpired that an administrative error at her Chambers had led to the wrong date being entered in the barrister?s diary.
This would normally have been spotted the week before, but with every colleague at Bindmans and Matrix Chambers busy in police stations all last week with Extinction Rebellion arrestees, no-one had been around to spot it. The barrister arrived at lunchtime and made her apologies.
At this point District Judge Toms said that it was clear that the trial could not be finished in the remainder of the two days scheduled and asked the defendants and legal teams to consider over lunch whether the case could continue into a third day. Despite agreement by all parties, it transpired that there was no courtroom available.
The Judge did not want to begin the case and then adjourn halfway through so she asked the usher to look for a two-day block in the future. This is now set for 8-9 July in a new venue of High Wycombe Magistrates.
Proceedings stuttered forward and then bizarrely, the prosecutor moved to amend the ‘obstruction of the highway’ charge in respect of the four defendants who were on The Mearings to one of ?aggravated trespass?, a significantly more serious charge. He claimed that that the defence had only raised the issue of the road not being a public highway at the last minute.
The defence Barrister objected to this strongly on the grounds of it being unreasonably late in the day, within 48 hours of the 6-month time limit for such changes – and that the defence documents had all stated that the Crown would be put to proof on all aspects of the charge. The Judge confirmed that this was indeed part of the defence case statement she had read.
A 10-minute adjournment was granted for both sides to consider their positions. The prosecutor then changed his strategy and said that rather than amending the charge, he was moving to lay aggravated trespass as an additional charge in respect of the four defendants who were on The Mearings. This is even more extraordinary. It means that these four defendants appear to face two mutually contradictory charges. In reality, it is likely that only one will be taken to trial.