Dear Solicitor General,
RE: Trudi Warner’s case: ‘A criminal prosecution is a disproportionate approach to this situation in a democratic society’
These are the words of Mr. Justice Saini in his judgement on the High Court hearing in which he refused the Solicitor General’s request for permission to bring proceedings for contempt of court against Trudi Warner and dismissed the claim. Her action has been widely reported on; she carried a placard outside a court where climate protestors were being tried bearing the handwritten words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”. These words are inscribed, for all to see, on a plaque in Old Bailey. The Solicitor General’s contention is that in doing so ‘Ms Warner (was) in contempt at common law through conduct which was a direct interference with the administration of justice, and undertaken with an intention to interfere with the administration of justice.’ Mr. Justice Saini judged that it was ‘fanciful’ to bring contempt charges against her and that doing so was based on a ‘mischaracterisation’ of the evidence of what Ms Warner did.[1]
In spite of this unequivocal judgement, the Solicitor General has decided to appeal against Mr. Justice Saini’s ruling. Trudi Warner is a member of the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA).[2] This open letter is written on behalf of the UK membership of the CPA, to express our dismay and concern about the shameful decision to appeal against the High Court ruling. Prior to the High Court hearing, we wrote an open letter to the then Solicitor General in which we urged him not to proceed with seeking permission for a contempt of court prosecution. We outlined why we thought Trudi Warner’s action was appropriate and proportionate and we let him know that we would act in a similar way.[3] (In fact, many of us have joined with the hundreds of others who have sat silently outside courts holding a banner with the same wording as Trudi used.)
We are concerned for our colleague who, having lived for more than a year with the threat of a prison sentence or an unlimited fine hanging over her, is now once more faced with that prospect. However, Trudi’s greater concern, and ours too, is to do with the wider implications of the Solicitor General’s decision. Why is the Solicitor General, a government minister appointed by and acting on behalf of the government, in such relentless pursuit of Trudi Warner? Does the government want to make an example of her in the context of ever-increasing governmental suppression of protest, particularly in relation to the climate crisis? Is the government lowering the threshold for criminal prosecution in relation to environmental protest to a level not compatible with a democratic society?
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders, Michael Forst, earlier this year expressed his grave concern about what he saw as a ‘severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions which he said was having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms.’[4]
Part of the context for Trudi’s action was the restriction being placed by sections of the judiciary on climate protest defendants by not allowing them to speak about the climate crisis as a motivating factor for their protest action. Jurors, denied this information, were expected to reach decisions on the basis of the bare facts of whether the action had occurred or not.
As the climate and ecological crises become ever more grave and in the face of grossly inadequate action by governments, the democratic right to protest is ever more needed. Juries are our safeguard against both authoritarian members of the judiciary and authoritarian governments acting in the service of vested interests.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Judith Anderson Chair of Board of Trustees
Climate Psychology Alliance (climatepsychologyalliance.org)
