The status of ‘jury equity’ has recently become topical because of prosecutions arising from climate protests. Many see the right of juries to reach a verdict in accordance with their convictions as an important constitutional safeguard. However, this has been challenged by judges and by the government’s solicitor general, with the prosecution of Trudi Warner who held up a placard, saying: “Jurors, You have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience”, to protest outside court.
Civil liberties groups argue that Warner’s prosecution is part of the government’s increasing attacks on the right to protest. Citizens in Oxford and across the country have also registered their concerns. In a letter to the solicitor general, Robert Courts KC, Oxford residents, Ines Smyth, Doke Ostle, Maggie Bicknell, April Jones, Peter Bicknell and Jessica Upton suggest that, since he is prosecuting someone for holding up a board outside court, he ought to arrest more than 300 others who’ve done the same. Here are some of their comments:
Dr Jessica Upton writes:
“I’ve lived and worked in Oxford for over 25 years. I’m a veterinary surgeon and emergency foster carer. I’ve raised my own 2 children here. I engage with local politics and with my MP. I pick up litter on my daily dog walk. My father was a family solicitor and my mother a barrister. I actively try to fight injustice when I see it rather than blinkering myself and labelling it somebody else’s problem.”
Other supporters such as Maggie Bicknell say that:
“There is no moral justification for prosecuting someone like Trudi Warner who simply reminded people of the role of responsible jurors and their right to reach decisions according to conscience. If the aim of our laws is to make our society a safer, fairer, better place in which to live, then, far from showing contempt for the court, Trudi is actually upholding our legal system and defending the principle of trial by jury.”
Similarly, Ines Smith said:
“I am among many people who have signed the letter to the solicitor general, Robert Courts, questioning why he is prosecuting Trudy Warner for believing that jurors should not be prevented from deliberating according to their conscience. Does he plan to prosecute all of us? What is happening to the right to protest? What is happening to justice?”
Why ask to be arrested?
1. The trigger – the arrest of Trudi Warner
In March 2023, at a trial of climate protestors at the Inner London Crown Court, a judge imposed an order that the defendants must not mention climate change in their defence to the jury. In response, a retired social worker, Trudi Warner, sat outside the court holding a sign reminding jurors that “You have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience”. A similar wording to Warner’s placard is displayed on a plaque within the Old Bailey itself which ends with the words “The Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their Convictions”, from a 1670 landmark ruling. Warner was arrested and the solicitor general at the time, Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole, served her prosecution papers on the final working day before Christmas. Was he hoping we’d all be distracted by mince-pies?
Is this a case of a privileged judge preventing a jury, which represents a cross section of society, from hearing a defendant’s motivation? The defendants have sworn to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, yet the judge has forbidden them to do this. In these circumstances, how can the jury get to the truth to make a fair judgement? It would appear in this case that a politicised solicitor general has prosecuted a woman with a highly developed conscience.
Warner was arrested simply for holding up an information board about something the jury should surely have been told in their jury briefing since it is enshrined in our legal system. What is happening to the right to a fair trial?
The ‘Defend our Juries’ campaign began as a response to this apparent judicial repression of human rights against the additional backdrop of the increasingly repressive UK legal environment. In 2021 and 2023 the government imposed increasingly tight restrictions on civil liberties. Restrictions have also been imposed on citizenship, strikes and suspected illegal migrants.
’Defend Our Juries’ aims to protect jury rights and to promote open and fair trials. The story of Warner struck a chord within me as soon as I heard about it and inspired me to get involved.
2. The evolution – a question of justice
In September last year, 240 people and, again in early December, 500 people across England and Wales reproduced Warner’s board. They stood outside Crown Courts from Bolton to Truro with the same signs. The police appeared to accept this peaceful event and show of solidarity with no arrests made. Now 300 people are pushing the solicitor general further. If Warner’s action is a crime, don’t pick just one person, prosecute us all!
I joined these peaceful silent placard-holders in Oxford. It was a cold, uncomfortable and anxious experience but if I wasn’t prepared to stand up (well, sit down) and be counted, who would be?
3. Current position – standing up for Trudi Warner
The new solicitor general, Courts, appears to be progressing with the prosecution of Warner. As an act of solidarity, a letter signed by over 300 people from across England and Wales who have taken part in the same sign holding protest as Warner, has been posted to him, and one handed in to him at the Ministry of Justice by a symbolic jury of 12 people. The letter states that if Warner is being prosecuted, so should we be.
My hope is that this will focus Courts’ mind on the ludicrousness of prosecuting people who are simply trying to ensure fair jury trials. The signatories include people from all walks of life: doctors, bus drivers, writers, nurses, upholsterers, mothers, photographers, scientists, social workers, engineers, civil servants, carers, grandmothers, solicitors, accountants, florists, fathers, musicians, builders, teachers, farmers, soldiers, web developers, Olympic gold medallists, grandfathers, theatre designers, town planners, opticians, porters, shop assistants, support workers, bankers, midwives, probation officers, lecturers, company directors, clergy and child psychotherapists. The variety of people supporting Trudi is extensive. These are all real people who live in the real world wanting to be judged by a jury of their peers. It is essential that juries are given access to the whole truth and empowered to make decisions based on their conscience.
The letter is the latest step in a growing campaign to inform ordinary people of the rights of juries. Back in 1670, the Bushel’s case and the Independence of Juries established in English and Welsh law that whatever verdict the jury arrives at the court has to accept. Watch this YouTube from Royal Holloway University of London on the case:
Whilst this is the law by convention neither the judge nor any barrister in the court will tell the jury this. This leaves the jury with the impression that they must do what the judge tells them to. They do not!
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
