Trial of Edmonton 5: Court 3, Wood Green Crown Court, London N22

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 a brief cross-examination and re-examination of Mr Montgomery of the Environment Agency before Mr Davies opened the case for the defence.

Mr Davies said there was no dispute that the defendants had acted together to occupy the chimney for several days, and no dispute that a few holes had been drilled and fixings attached. Mr Davies told the jury that the trial was unusual because none of the defendants were motivated by greed or violence but were in fact interested in everybody's quality of life.

Mr Davies told the jury that there were three key issues to consider for the defence:

1. Was there damage caused? (was the incinerator broken, no longer fit for its function, or did it look very different?) He said it was necessary to decide not who did what or what happened but why it happened.
2. Was what the defendants did reasonable in all the circumstances? If so, a person could have a lawful excuse for acting in a manner that would normally lead to a charge of criminal damage. Important questions to consider were - how serious was the crime the defendants sought to prevent?; what other measures had they gone to?; what could they be expected to have done otherwise?
3. A person has a lawful excuse to commit criminal damage if they act to protect property (such as an allotment, a building, a cow, some grass..): if the property belonging to themselves or others is in imminent danger or in need of protection a person can do whatever they honestly believe is reasonably necessary. The jury were asked to consider whether the trial concerned a publicity stunt as the prosecution might suggest, or whether in fact it was an attempt to stop an operation in order to protect property and prevent the commission of a crime.

Rob Gueterbock, a Greenpeace campaigner and defendant, was then called to the witness box by Mr Davies. Mr Gueterbock told Mr Davies that his aim on 9th to 13th October 2000 was to shut the Edmonton incinerator down because it was spewing out a toxic cocktail of chemicals which were known to cause cancer, asthma, birth defects and other health conditions. He explained that dioxins were a major concern since one of them was the most toxic substance known to humankind.

Mr Gueterbock told the court that the Environment Agency's regulations for incinerator emissions were not designed to protect human health but to describe what the plants could achieve. Asked why he took part in the shutting down of Edmonton incinerator at that precise moment, Mr Gueterbock said it was because the Government was about to start a massive expansion of incinerator plants, developing 160 odd incinerators (compared to the existing 11).

Asked whether the action was a publicity stunt, Mr Gueterbock said there were "easier ways of doing it if that had been what we wanted