Greenpeace volunteers install solar panels on Prescott's roof
Day 1 - 1 November 2005
Francis Fitzgibbon, barrister for the eight Greenpeace defendants, opened the case by submitting that the evidence of Pauline Prescott should be considered irrelevant to the case, as according to her written witness statement, it appeared she was not within sight or hearing of the protest that took place at her home on April 26. Section 5 of the Public Order Act, with which the defendants are all charged, states that the alleged behaviour must take place within sight or hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress as a result.
The judge however requested that Mrs Prescott's evidence be heard, and she was the first of the prosecution witnesses to give evidence. She stated that she did not know it was Greenpeace on her roof for about half an hour on the morning of the action, until her husband John Prescott told her on the phone.
She also claimed that she saw someone climbing up past the window of Della Georgeson's (her husband's secretary) room. However, when Della Georgeson gave evidence next, she says she only peeped through the curtains to see protesters at the foot of a ladder, and that following this Mrs Prescott popped her head around the door and hurried Miss Georgeson into her room, while the curtains remained closed.
There followed the evidence of several police officers at the scene. PC York, one of the two armed police officers at the home, said that Mrs Prescott called him on his mobile within two minutes of the action starting, and he told her it was Greenpeace. PC Cameron-Johnson, the other armed officer, said the protest was "as peaceful as it could be" and Police Inspector Jones confirmed under cross examination that she saw no violence or disorder.
Superintendent Collinson, the most senior policeman on the scene on the day, said he considered forcibly removing the protestors but decided it wouldn't be safe. He admitted there were no ladders in the vicinity which were available for protestors to descend immediately when they were asked to do so by his colleague.
Picking up on that final point, Francis Fitzgibbon made his final submission for the day, that there was in fact no case to answer on Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act (the defendants are also charged with contravening a police direction to leave the premises under this Act). He argued that the direction given by the police to leave the roof was not given by the most senior officer at the scene and was therefore not lawful, that the protestors could not obey the direction immediately because there were no immediate means available to them to come down, that there was no time limit or deadline given in the warning, and that the warning was given on the basis that Mr Prescott would be harassed, alarmed or distressed by the Greenpeace presence, when in fact he was not in or near the house at the time.
The judge retired to consider whether or not to allow this charge to remain, and will give his decision on Wednesday morning, after which the defence will begin their case.
