The Sham Trial by Roger Hallam | September 2024 | Defend our Juries | скачать в хорошем качестве

The Sham Trial by Roger Hallam | September 2024 | Defend our Juries |

Read by Louise Harris. Written by Roger Hallam. Donate to The Whole Truth Five: https://chuffed.org/project/support-t... Support the Whole Truth Five: https://defendourjuries.org/wtf/ Sentenced to a total of 21 years in prison. Cressie Gethin (22, from Hereford), Daniel Shaw (38, from Northampton), Lou Lancaster (58, from Cambridge), Lucia Whittaker De Abreu (34, from Derby) & Roger Hallam (57, from South Wales) have been found guilty of conspiracy to cause public nuisance at Southwark Crown Court in July, in connection with the M25 gantry actions in November 2022. Their sentences? Four years for Cressie, Dan, Lu and Lucia, and five years for Roger. The longest sentences for nonviolent protest in UK history. After participating in a Zoom call in which a Sun journalist was present, all five were subject to police raids at their homes and preemptively arrested. The Sun alleged it had “infiltrated” the public meeting and boasted of tipping off the police and enabling National Highways to secure a public injunction. Since their arrests, the five have had various restrictions imposed on their freedom - including 113 days imprisonment without trial, a 12-hour home curfew monitored by electronic tag, no contact with co-defendants, and no participation in climate protest. Judge declares climate crisis ‘irrelevant and inadmissible’. The jury entered guilty verdicts against all defendants after Judge Hehir removed all their legal defences, ruling that climate issues were ‘irrelevant and inadmissible’, dismissing them as mere ‘political opinion and belief’. Judge Hehir imprisoned Roger for five years, whilst Daniel, Lucia, Lou and Cressie were each sentenced to four years. "When, in the midst of a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, a peaceful environmental protester like Mr. Shaw faces an extended prison sentence in the United Kingdom, alarm bells should go off not just across the United Kingdom, but across the international community also. It signals that fundamental pillars of a democratic society are right now in grave peril in the United Kingdom." - UN Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders under the Aarhus Convention - Michel Forst The Sham Trial (Transcript) From the very start, it was clear our trial was a farce. The judge’s orders to arrest defendants and frequently send out the jury spoke volumes about the repression we face. This wasn’t just an ordinary trial; it was a rigged spectacle aimed at undermining resistance to the carbon regime. We have faced a legal charade where the jury was denied crucial context. We gave 250 pages of scientific backing to our actions but it was denied. Four key facts about the climate crisis and our protest were eventually agreed to, but the judge dismissed their use in our defence. How can justice be served when the jury is kept in the dark about why we took action and the urgency behind it? It’s a blatant disregard for fairness. The prosecution’s claims of conspiracy against me were laughable. There were no documents, no records of meetings, and no proof linking me to any organised effort to disrupt the M25 gantries. The entire case rested on a 20-minute Zoom talk—a standard part of advocating for general civil disobedience, not evidence of a particular conspiracy. The lack of substantial evidence is a clear indicator of the trial’s true nature: a sham designed to silence and make examples of us, not to pursue justice. We were charged with causing a public nuisance without reasonable excuse. But let’s be real: our resistance was aimed at addressing the incoming catastrophe of greenhouse gas emissions — a crisis acknowledged by 99% of scientists, the UK parliament and the UN. The law allows for reasonable excuses when it comes to public nuisance, especially in the face of such an urgent and existential threat. Ignoring this context twists the law into something unrecognisable and unjust. Our trial wasn’t just about whether we broke the law; it was about whether the law serves justice. With the planet on the brink of catastrophe, causing a public nuisance was a necessary measure to demand urgent action. Our actions were not only justified—they were essential. We acted out of desperation to push for the change that’s needed to save lives and protect our future. This case is a glaring example of how the justice system can be manipulated to crush legitimate dissent. When a trial is based on flimsy evidence and ignores the broader context of our actions, it’s a mockery of justice. This sham trial sets a dangerous precedent of criminalising dissent without fair consideration. The integrity of our legal system—and our commitment to real justice—hangs in the balance. #wholetruthfive #climatecrisis #globalwarming