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:
Following a sustained direct action campaign, initiated by Palestine Action before the group was proscribed, Allianz and Aviva no longer insure Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer.
Direct Action gets results. 🧵1/4
The direct action campaign against Allianz began in October 2024 when Palestine Action targeted 10 of their offices in a single day, demanding the firm stop insuring Elbit Systems.
This was followed by dozens of actions against the insurance giant across Britain and Europe. 2/4
Today: activist and humanitarian, Greta Thunberg, was arrested outside the offices of Aspen Insurance in London.
Aspen Insurance is a global speciality insurer that provides services to Elbit Systems to enable them to make weapons in Britain.
Defend Our Juries sign-holders have today visited the Royal Courts of Justice in support of five appellants found guilty of criminal damage after their trial was manipulated by a rogue judge who is accused of misleading the jury.
Judge Silas Reid, a judge renowned for his biased opposition to protestors, told jurors in March 2024 that they do not have a right to acquit defendants according to their conscience. This was patently false and incredibly misleading.
Jurors have held the right to acquit defendants according to conscience since 1670. This right, known as “Jury Equity” is enshrined in law and is an important accountability defence to help avoid the manipulation of trials by biased judges or those with vested interests.
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: