A person smashes a car window, causing the car alarm to go off and creating a public scene. The police quickly arrive and arrest the person.
During the arrest, the person tries to explain their motive for breaking the window. 🧵 1/9
The police officer handcuffs the now arrestee and tells them that they were spotted by multiple witnesses breaking the window and they will have to take their explanation to the investigating officer during interview.
In the meantime, they’ll be taken to a holding cell. 2/9
During the interview, the now detainee is shown video evidence of themself smashing the car window and is told they will be facing trial for their alleged crime. The detainee does not deny breaking the window.
They are told they’ll need to explain their motive in court. 3/9
Prior to the trial, the now defendant is told by the judge that they will have no defence in law.
They are not permitted to explain their motives in court and are told that, if they do, they’ll face arrest for “contempt of court” and could be sent straight to prison.
4/9
During the trial, the prosecution tells the jury “clearly, you saw the defendant break the car window in the CCTV footage. You’ve heard the accounts from witnesses, you must find the defendant guilty”.
The judge explains to the jury that the defendant has no defence in law. 5/9
The jurors find the defendant guilty, permitting the judge to move forward with sentencing.
At no point during the trial are the jurors told the whole story. The motives of the defendant are kept from the jurors under threat of contempt of court and imprisonment. 6/9
The information kept from the jury?
A baby had been left alone inside the car, suffocating in intense heat. The defendant broke the window in order to rescue the baby.
Does it seem fair that they were not permitted to explain this to the jury?
Was it an unjust trial? 7/9
Peaceful activists are facing a similar injustice in UK courts due to manipulation by ministers seeking to avoid accountability for the decisions they make.
Nonviolent climate activists are being denied a fair trial by judges who refuse to allow jurors to hear their motives. 8/9
Regardless of the accusation, defendants should have the right to explain their motive.
A jury cannot give a fair verdict if they are not told the “whole truth”. It is imperative that evidence is not withheld - doing so will lead to unjust convictions.
If, unlike the trolls who seemingly don’t agree with the principles of fair justice in a democracy, you think EVERYONE should have the right to explain what motivates them to take nonviolent action:
MET ‘PROUD’ THAT ANOTHER 60 OF 700 ‘FACE PROSECUTION’
Today the Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has said he is ‘proud’ that a further 60 of 700 peaceful protestors will be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act.
Our response in this thread🧵
The Met Chief, Sir Mark Rowley, says he is ‘proud’ that of the 700 protestors arrested for holding signs since 5 July people, 60 have now been charged.
What exactly is he proud about?
Of the brilliant policing work required to detect the ‘crimes’ of those quietly protesting in Parliament Square? That after 6 weeks of ‘investigation’, less than a tenth of those arrested have been charged?
People have been visiting courts across England & Wales for two years now to remind the public of the right for jurors to find a defendant “not guilty” based on their conscience (Jury Equity)
Good people such as this group in Cambridge yesterday 1/4
So what does all this have to do with the recent proscribing of direct action groups?!
There is a clear and concerted attack on the right to fair trials in the UK - particularly relating to freedoms to oppose crimes against humanity.
From the removal of all legal defences, private injunctions to protect wealthy businesses, the use of anti-terror laws to silence direct actionists, and the extreme sentences handed to nonviolent protestors - the corporate takeover of UK law is clear:
A letter from the #WholeTruthFive to everyone who has been outraged by their sentencing.
This letter has been collaboratively penned and approved by the five from their cells as they carry out record sentences for their involvement in peaceful protest in the UK.
Part 1 of 3.
Part 2 of the letter from the #WholeTruthFive to everyone who has been outraged by their sentencing. #FreePoliticalPrisoners
Today, campaigners hand-delivered a petition to Attorney General Richard Hermer KC, at the Ministry of Justice.
Signed by over 60K people, the petition calls for an end to the imprisonment of peaceful protesters, including the #WholeTruthFive
1/4
With the petition is a letter from Defend Our Juries renewing the call for a public meeting to discuss the Government’s violations of international law.
Should that demand not be met, We promise an escalation of action, beginning Sept 27.