Sheffield: local support
Thursday 28th November
Right Honourable Judge Bentley
Mr Owen Davies QC
Mr Watson QC
Thursday's proceedings opened with the cross-examination of Rachel Murray by the prosecution.
The prosecutor, Mr Watson, accepted that Rachel truly believed Sheffield incinerator was committing crimes and breaching emission levels. He went on to question her about the action itself asking why, after the incinerator had been successfully shut down, was it necessary to paint the words "toxic crime". Rachel explained that shutting the incinerator at that time was a part of the objective, but that the painting was necessary in order to mobilise local opposition against the incinerator.
Asked what could have been done before taking action at Sheffield, Rachel said she was aware that letters had been written to the plant owners, correspondence had been sent to local newspapers, a postcard campaign had taken place and contact had been made with local groups. She concluded that she believed the methods used were the most effective possible. A lot of local support had been mobilised and the incinerator had been condemned just one month after the action and was now being shut down.
Asked why paint had been used instead of a banner she replied that the weather could have been atrocious and they needed to do something that was not weather dependant, in those conditions it was not safe to use a banner.
Quoting from Rachel's defence statement, the prosecutor asked which property had been defended and whether it was in need of immediate protection. Rachel told him that the action had protected homes, cars, allotments, everything surrounding the incinerator. She said that the action had immediately prevented the production of acid gases, which in itself was worthwhile but that it had also mobilised support to push for long-term protection for such damage.
Mr Davies, for the defence, put a few more questions to Rachel. She responded by further explaining safety concerns over the use of banners. Banners had been used at the Edmonton incinerator action and proved very difficult. The material they are made of is similar to that of kites, making the banners much like a sail that could whisk a person away in an unknown direction. Safety being paramount, it was decided not to use this method.
Expert witness for the defence, Mr John Large, Chartered Engineer. Mr Large explained that he had been asked to provide a report in relation to the operation of the plant, and the costing of the repair work carried out after the action. He estimated that removing the painting should have cost between £2,000 - £2,500.
Mr Large's opinion on the operation of the plant was that waste checking at the input stage was very poor. The only method by which unsuitable materials were sorted was via a picking crane which viewed the incoming waste from a height of 50ft. At this height it was very difficult for the crane to pick out unsuitable materials particularly if they were wrapped within other waste. He gave an example of small watch batteries which are difficult to spot in this way but which contain cadmium, a chemical that affects the nervous system. He went on to explain that a constant temperature of 850 degrees is necessary to ensure complete combustion of dangerous substances, and that maintaining this temperature depended on the addition of fuel and air and the type of waste. Some waste produces heat and other types of waste require heat to burn. Variable, unsorted waste such as would be fed into the Sheffield incinerator made it very difficult to keep the correct balance of fuel and air.
Commenting on the emissions record of the incinerator Mr Large said that over the last two years public records showed that it continued to breach emission levels on average eight or nine times a month. He said that the plant does not comply with its authorisation certificate and is consistently failing to meet standards on monitored emissions and he would expect the same to be true of other non-monitored emissions.
Mr Chris Holden, defendant.
Chris told the jury that he was a qualified industrial climber and had worked as a commercial climber. He holds a 2.1 in biochemistry. He has been a supporter of Greenpeace for many years and became actively involved with Greenpeace in 2000.
He first became concerned about incineration in 1997, while still at university. He has many concerns about it, the main being that incinerators are devices designed to spread toxic chemicals over large areas, damaging health and property. His degree in bio-chemistry had made him familiar with dangers of chemicals. And prior to May 2001 he had heard about the incident at Byker in Newcastle, in which bottom ash had been spread on allotments rendering them unfit for growing food on.
Asked about the sources he used to gain his knowledge about incineration, Chris replied there were a wide range including The New Scientist, Greenpeace, conversations with colleagues at university and personal experience in another matter, which had led him to believe that the Environment Agency was not very effective.
In relation to Sheffield, he was aware that it had committed multiple breaches of emission levels and that it was sited so that the top of the stack was level with people's homes. He said this was a fact he could confirm, having been able to look into people's window whilst on top of the chimney.
Asked by Mr Watson, for the prosecution, why they used paint rather than banners - he explained that using banners was not something anyone did lightly, this was also true for commercial climbers, who are instructed to immediately cut loose any banner which begins to move around. He had spoken to people involved in the Edmonton action and watched a video of the action, which had illustrated to the difficulties of using banners.
Asked if the action was all about publicity, Chris said not in his mind. He had wanted the best way to shut the incinerator down, and thought this was a good way of getting people to campaign to close it down. It closed while they were there and he had hoped that enough people would take action to keep it closed.
The prosecution noted that there had been one woman involved in both the Edmonton and Sheffield actions and asked whether this was a matter of policy. Clearly surprised by the question, Chris said that he didn't understand. When asked again, he said that Rachel's purpose on the action was not 'to be a female up a chimney' but to act as a qualified member of a team. The prosecutor than asked if the woman present at the Edmonton action had relevant qualifications. At that point His Right Honourable Judge Bentley interjected "they'd be daft to take her up if she didn't".
Mr. Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace, Chief Executive.
Questioned by the defence Mr. Tindale said that he took personal responsibility in authorising campaigns and actions, including the Sheffield action. He said that there were stringent criteria for organising direct action, and that the decision to take direct action would only happen after extensive discussions with colleagues. He denied that the Sheffield action was a publicity stunt. He then gave a character reference for Rachel Murray, saying that he knew her well and that in his experience she was straightforward, honest and passionate about protecting the environment.
Cross-examined by the prosecution Mr Tindale confirmed that he drew a distinction between a direct action and a public awareness-raising event.
Mr. Huw Williams, defendant.
Huw told the jury that he is an experienced rock climber and owns his own business producing rope-access equipment. He has been a member of his local Greenpeace active supporter group for nine years.
He became involved in the Sheffield action because he strongly believes in, and has been involved in, the issues surrounding incineration for a long while. He had read reports published in the Chemical Engineer, and by Greenpeace, referring to the harmful toxins produced by incinerators and said it was a matter he had discussed extensively with his partner who is a chemical engineer.
He stated that he understood the aims of the action to be: to shut the incinerator down, to maintain a shut down, which in the near future would lead to a permanent shut down. He explained that there had been local groups campaigning against the incinerator for a long time and that part of the objective was to build further opposition.
The defence was concluded with character references for Huw Williams and Chris Holden. All the evidence has now been heard and the jury will reconvene on Monday.
