Greenpeace today announced that it will ask the House of Lords to consider its case that the war against Iraq was an illegal act of aggression (1).
The move follows today's Appeal ruling that the 14 Greenpeace protestors who engaged in protests to prevent the build up to war could not appeal on the basis that they were preventing individuals from committing war crimes (1). This was one of the two key legal arguments that the protestors tried to use in their initial court case, the other being that the war itself was illegal under international law.Stephen Tindale Director of Greenpeace UK said: "It's outrageous that Blair could take this country into a war based on dodgy intelligence, that even his own lawyers told him would be illegal, and face no penalty, while these protestors who attempted to prevent an illegal war get a criminal record."
He continued: "We believe we were denied a fair trial and aim to appeal to be heard by the House of Lords. If this is granted we intend to call again for the release of the Attorney General's legal advice which will show that at the same time these 14 people undertook their protest the Attorney General was himself was advising the government that military action against Iraq in the absence of a second UN resolution would be illegal."
The 14 Greenpeace protestors were convicted of aggravated trespass for trying to prevent the military build up to war in February 2003 by occupying tanks at Marchwood military base in Southampton, from where hardware and supplies were being sent to Iraq. The occupation was part of a week of actions at Marchwood aimed at stopping the build up to war. All 14 defendants were arrested and charged with aggravated trespass (disrupting lawful activity).
On 9 March 2004 their case was heard at Southampton Magistrates Court by District Judge John Woollard. Rabinder Singh QC of Matrix Chambers represented the defendants and sought to argue that the Iraq war was illegal in international law, therefore the protestors were not disrupting 'lawful' activity.
The Attorney General was formally asked to appear at the trial to outline the advice he gave the government regarding the legality of the war, but the Judge ruled the advice should be kept secret. The Judge had earlier refused to order a witness summons against former senior civil servant Elizabeth Wilmshurst, despite indications that she would not resist a summons. As former Deputy Legal Advisor at the Foreign Office she was in a position to reveal how the Government viewed the legality of the war when the protest took place.
The Judge decided that the prosecution did not have to prove the lawfulness of their actions in relation to crime against peace or crimes under the International Criminal Courts Act. He further found that it was beyond the remit of the Court to investigate the Government's case for war and whether the Government's foreign and defence policy was illegal. As such he found the defendants guilty of Aggravated Trespass and Criminal Damage.
Notes
(1) Greenpeace are asking leave to join this aspect of their case to that of the "Fairford Five" who have already been given leave to appeal to the House of Lords following an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal.
(2) Lord Justice Waller and Mr Justice Jack ruled that allegations of war crimes can be heard by lower courts in the UK, however the cases before them had inadequate evidence to justify an appeal.
Further information
For more information or a copy of the background briefing about the legal case: call Greenpeace UK press office on 0207 865 8255.
Media contact at Court: Dominick Jenkins on 07796 947 452 or Louise Edge on 07801 212993.
The defendants are: Oliver Knowles of London; Ashby Smith of Washington DC, USA; Laura Yates of London; Natalie Duck of London; Graham Thompson of Romford, Essex; Helen Wallace of Buxton, Derbyshire; Janice Harron of London; Jim Footner of Shropshire; Rachel Murray of Glasgow; Richard Watson of Burnley; Robin Oakley of Lancashire; Belinda Fletcher of Oxford; Ben Ayliffe of London; Jens Loewe of Germany.
