Trial of Edmonton 5 Court 3, Wood Green Crown Court, London N22 Day 10 - 12th June, 2001

Greenpeace protesters outside the Edmonton incinerator

Heard before His Honour Judge Mervyn Roberts
Crown Prosecution Service: Mr Christopher Ball QC and Mr Morris
Defending: Mr Owen Davies QC and Ms Judy Khan

The day began with His Honour Judge Mervyn Roberts summing up the case for the jury.

Judge Roberts told the jury that the trial was not about who is right or who is wrong in an ongoing debate about waste incineration and was not a public inquiry on waste burning. The two central issues that the jury must decide were:

1. Was there damage to the chimney and
2. If damage occurred, was it lawfully inflicted in order to save some person or property?

On the first question, the Judge pointed out that the defence had already argued that the chimney was damaged before the Greenpeace action and that the activities of the defendants had not added to this damage. The defence witness John Large had already told the jury that the 'damage' was 'a flea bite on a dog's back'.

After the occupation the chimney had been back in action within days and no repair work was carried out until three months later. On the other hand, the prosecution had argued that banging holes in a chimney was obviously damage.

The Judge's direction was that the activities of the defendants were capable of amounting to damage but it was up to the jury to decide whether it was or wasn't. If the jury thought that the defendants' activities might not have caused damage, then they should return verdicts of not guilty.

However, if the jury were convinced that damage had occurred, they should consider the second issue, did the defendants have a lawful excuse?

The Judge said that the defendants claimed they had a lawful excuse for their actions and indeed there was some evidence to support their view. But there could only be a lawful excuse for criminal damage if:

1. There was immediate danger to persons or property and
2. The means adopted were reasonable in all circumstances.

The Judge added it was important for the jury to understand that it did not matter whether the defendants' beliefs concerning damage were actually correct - only that the beliefs were honestly held. If the defendants really believed that damage was being inflicted by the Edmonton incinerator, that was enough.

The defence had presented some evidence that property may be damaged by the incinerator and scientific reports that showed the potentially harmful nature of emissions. However, the jury should also ask itself whether there was a need for immediate action. The plant had, after all, operated for many years and there was no evidence of actual damage to surrounding property.

The Judge concluded his summary of the legal issues in the case by giving the jury two tests to decide the innocence or otherwise of the defendants:

1. Did the defendants honestly believe they were preventing a crime when they occupied the Edmonton incinerator and
2. Were their actions reasonable in all circumstances or were the defendants simply motivated by a desire to achieve publicity for their cause?

The Judge then went on to summarise the evidence for and against the defendants.

The Judge sent the jury out to consider their verdict at 1.00pm.

The jury had reached no verdict by 4.00pm and were sent home for the evening to reconvene at 10.15am, Wednesday, 13th June.