Trudi Warner has called attempts by judges to stop climate activists from telling juries the reasons for their direct actions ‘deeply concerning’, reports Marco Marcelline

Inset: Trudi Warner, main image: Royal Courts of Justice, credit: Chris Mansfield via Canva

A retired social worker who the government had sought to prosecute for holding a sign about jury rights has sounded the alarm on what she calls a “deeply concerning” authoritarian lurch by top judges in recent months.

Trudi Warner’s year-and-a-half legal ordeal came to an end this month after Labour’s new solicitor general dropped the previous government’s attempt to prosecute her for contempt of court.

In March last year, Trudi had stood outside Inner London crown court for 30 minutes holding a placard reading: “Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience”. The quote reflected a 300-year-old legal principle written on a plaque at the Old Bailey. Inside the court, several Insulate Britain protesters were facing prosecution for blocking roads.

Judge Silas Reid, who was sitting at the court that day, sought to prosecute Trudi for claiming she was attempting to influence the jury. In May, a High Court judge had said there was no basis to take action against Trudi, a decision the previous solicitor general said he would appeal.

Speaking to the Echo following the decision by the new government to drop that appeal, Trudi said her win was “sinking in”, and hoped that it was “changing the narrative” against climate protestors.

She however sounded the alarm on what she called a “deeply concerning” attempt by judges across the UK to prevent climate and Pro-Palestine activists from telling the jury the reasons and motivations for their demonstrations. She said: “Some judges are saying that the right of juries to acquit, even though it is now endorsed by the High Court, cannot be mentioned in courtrooms.

“They are also still saying that these are courts of law and not of morality. This makes no sense to me.” Further accusing the judges of appearing to “be acting unlawfully”, she said: “I think most people would expect the law to reflect morality if it is to make any sense at all.”

The comments come following the jailing of five Just Stop Oil protesters in July. The activists, who had planned to cause gridlock on the M25, were sentenced to a record prison sentence of four years, with one, Roger Hallam, sentenced to five years. The campaign group Defend Our Juries say the sentences are the “longest passed on peaceful protestors in living memory”.

The sentences prompted 1,200 of the UK’s leading legal and cultural figures to write to the Attorney General, who called the decision ‘‘one of the greatest injustices in a British court in modern history”. They have called for an urgent meeting with the new Labour attorney general Richard Hermer to discuss the jailing of climate and Pro-Palestine activists.

The UN special rapporteur Michel Forst, who observed the trial on the five Just Stop Oil activists, has described the four to five year sentences as “not acceptable in a democracy”. Slamming the decision, Forst said: “The idea that a judge could decide all alone what is acceptable evidence to present to the jury is something which is, for me, difficult to understand, how a democracy would not be able to allow the defendant to present the evidence properly.”

Meanwhile, on 6th August, two men who supported a break-in protest by Palestine Action at a Kent arms factory supplying weapons to Israel were arrested on suspicion of being part of an organised crime group. According to the Guardian, it is believed to be the first use of organised crime laws against protesters in the UK.

The move was criticised by lawyers who described it as “a very concerning development”.

These were not government directed moves however, and groups such as Defend our Juries have been heartened by the move by the new Labour solicitor general to drop the appeal against Warner, who called it the “clearest signal yet that the new government plans to distance itself from its predecessor’s assault on democratic and political freedoms”.

Last month, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, signalled she would review her predecessor’s attempt to overturn another High Court ruling concerning the right to protest.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.