Greenpeace 28 on trial
Today Judge Mellor summed up the case. He told the jury that his job was to tell them what the law was and to remind them of some of the evidence; their job was ﾓto reach an honest decision on the facts and apply those facts to the lawﾅ and then come to [their] verdict.ﾔ The jury were asked to decide why what happened on 26 July had happened, explaining it was ﾓfor the prosecution to prove the guilt of each defendantﾔ but that no one else had to prove anything. Judge Mellor told the jury that all 28 defendants had to be considered, that none of them had tried to ﾓshuffleﾔ blame for their actions on to anyone else - and that they were ﾓproud perhaps to stand togetherﾔ.
Judge Mellor summarised the case for the prosecution as one which did not accept that the defendants had a lawful excuse for ﾓdamaging Mr Brighamﾒs maizeﾔ. He then related the relevant points of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which stated that a person charged with criminal damage would be treated with a lawful excuse ﾓif he destroyed or damaged the property in question in order to protect the property belonging to himself or anotherﾅ and believed that the property was in immediate need of protection, and believed [his actions to be] reasonable in all the circumstancesﾔ and if their beliefs about these were honestly held. He explained that this Act did not include wildlife such as fungi and that the property in need of protection [in this case] was limited to three main points: i) it was there; ii) it was within the range of pollen released by the Lyng crop; iii) that property was liable to be damaged by that pollen [economically]. Parliament also excluded from the lawful excuse any action to protect property from ﾓsecondary or long-term effectsﾔ - the property had to
fall within ﾓthe first strike of the cropﾔ.
The judge emphasised that as well as the horizontal gene transfer about which the jury had heard, ﾓit is clear that pollen would be the major source of any potential contaminationﾔ and that it was the fear of impending pollination which influenced the timing of the action. Judge Mellor said, ﾓEvery little grain of pollen has DNA in it - so I do exclude other vegetable matterﾔ when ﾑpollenﾒ was referred to. He added that pollen also had the longest range and ﾓbiggest multiplicationﾔ.
Judge Mellorﾒs questions for the jury to consider with regard to each defendant were then handed out. They were as follows: ﾓCriminal damage i) Are you sure that x took part in damaging a maize crop belonging to AgrEvo? ii) Was it or may it have been xﾒs purpose to protect relevant* property? iii) May x have honestly believed when taking part in damaging the maize that the relevant* property was in immediate need of protection? iv) May x have honestly believed that in all the circumstances the operations in which he or she was taking part were a reasonable means of protecting the property? (*ﾑRelevant propertyﾒ means maize crops liable to cross-pollinate with pollens from the trial crop and any other property susceptible to direct damage by that pollen but does not include anything growing wild on any land or any wild creature).
ﾓThere is no dispute that the only possible answer to the first question is yes. If your answer to any of the remaining questions is no you will return a verdict of guilty. If your answer to all questions including the first is yes, you will return a verdict of not guilty.ﾔ
Judge Mellor told the jury that he would now remind them of the background of the case; give a summary of the events leading up to the visit to Walnut Tree Farm on 26 July 1999; make references to what had happened at Walnut Tree Farm; and finally give a reminder of what each defendant had to say.
The judge told the jury that Peter Melchettﾒs worries about genetic engineering dated back about thirteen years. In this case the T-25 maize had been subject to the insertion of a gene which made it tolerant to ﾑLibertyﾒ herbicide. Genetic modification involved a ﾑtransformation eventﾒ whereby those seeking to achieve an effect know what they want to achieve ﾓbut they donﾒt know where in the DNA sequence of that plantﾔ to aim the gene in order to get the desired effect: ﾓIt is a case of insert and see.ﾔ
Of the Greenpeace GM campaign, Judge Mellor told the jury that it starts with ﾓconcerned people and the general public not knowing anything about itﾅ If it is a successful campaign, you may run with nobody on your side to finishing up with everybody on your side. That is what campaigning is all about.ﾔ He explained that GM crops had been planted in the United States for some years, saying, ﾓPerhaps the genie or the cat is already out of the bag, at least in the USﾔ, but that in the mid-1990s they had started exporting GM soya or maize into the UK, which was included in unlabelled processed foods and people were unaware of this. The judge gave examples of some elements of the Greenpeace GM campaign, including the Beanfeast and True Food campaigns.
The Judge reminded the jury that the GM crop at Lyng had been planted before the Scientific Steering Committee had ever met, quoting Dr Avery of the RSPB as having said, ﾓThe whole thing got off at half cockﾔ; what was to be the first year of a three-year trial became a preliminary year to be followed by three others. The flaws that Greenpeace saw in the crop at Lyng would apply to every crop in the country, the judge said, stating that the defence case was that ﾓGreenpeace sought to do everything they could to prevent the farm crop trials from continuing.ﾔ
The judge then briefly summarised the evidence given by each defendant, reminding the jury of their campaigning and educational background, their functions at the action on 26 July 1999, and the evidence of what their beliefs were at the time. He said, Obviously each one had strong views about the release of GMOs - their unpredictability, uncontrollability and that they could not be called back. He told the jury that at the very least the defendants believed that GMOs ought to be unlawful. The main themes running through the summarised evidence were: the protection of property; the prevention of the spread of contamination to the local and wider environment; the exploration of other ways of getting the trials stopped; serious concerns about pollination and horizontal gene transfer.Judge Mellor told the jury that the defendants were every one of them intelligent, idealistic and committed.
The jury were then asked to retire and return with their unanimous verdict, telling them they would be brought back at 4.15pm to tell the court whether they needed more time. At. 4.15pm no verdict had been reached; the jury are in retirement until tomorrow morning when court resumes.
