Courts and Tribunals Bill — Written evidence submitted by Tim Crosland, PlanB.Earth (CTB17)

Written evidence submitted by Tim Crosland, PlanB.Earth (CTB17)

Contents

A. INTRODUCTION

B. THE ULTERIOR MOTIVE FOR THE BILL PROVISIONS: REMOVING TRIAL BY JURY FROM THOSE
CHALLENGING THE INTERESTS OF THE POWERFUL
C. THE DEMOCRATIC IMPERATIVE TO RETAIN TRIAL BY JURY FOR PRECISELY SUCH CASES

A. INTRODUCTION

I am a former government lawyer, whose previous roles included Head of Legal for the National
Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) , and Deputy Director (Legal) at the Serious Organised Crime
Agency (SOCA). I am now the Director of the climate justice charity, Plan B.Earth. I am also a co-
founder of the civil liberties movement, Defend Our Juries.

Thousands within the legal profession, i.e. those with direct practical experience of the criminal
justice system, dispute the Government’s purported justification for removing trial by jury from
either-way cases, which is that such a measure would substantially promote efficiency within the
system, reducing the backlog of trials.

I aim to assist the Committee on two related matters:

First, the Government’s ulterior motive for these measures, which is to remove trial by
jury from those prosecuted for challenging the interests of the powerful; and

Second, the democratic imperative to retain trial by jury for precisely such cases.

B. THE ULTERIOR MOTIVE FOR THE BILL PROVISIONS: REMOVING TRIAL BY JURY FROM THOSE
CHALLENGING THE INTERESTS OF THE POWERFUL
B.1 Jury acquittals of those acting against climate breakdown and racism have been framed as
a problem to be solved

I turn first to the report of Lord Walney from May 2024, who was at the time presented to the
public as the Government’s ‘independent adviser for political violence and disruption’, and his
Recommendation 271:
“Recommendation 27: The Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice should convene a
process to examine the potential issue of juries acquitting defendants and judges
applying laws differently when they are transgressed in the name of progressive causes
like climate change and anti-racism.” (p.289)
Lord Walney perceived it to be a problem that juries have frequently acquitted protestors, such
as those who have acted to get good information to the public regarding the climate crisis, or to
challenge racism in the police.
Lord Walney was at the time a lobbyist for firms representing both the oil and arms industries,
firms such as BP and Leonardo, who had been the targets of protest action2, so it is not surprising
if he regarded the acquittals of those who had interfered with his clients economic interests as a
problem to be solved.
And that is precisely why jurors are so essential in such cases. They act as a circuit-breaker on the
vested interests and the self-serving arguments of those in power.
As a result of Freedom of Information Act requests, we know that the Home Office has also met
industry representatives behind closed doors concerning jury acquittals in protest cases. One
heavily redacted minute from April 2023, between Elbit Systems and a Home Office Minister,
understood to be Chris Philp MP, leaves only a few sentences still legible which include the
following:
“Objectives of the discussion
Reassure Elbit Systems UK and the wider sector affected by Palestine Action that the
Government cares about the harm the group are causing the private sector …
Background

1
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66462426b7249a4c6e9d3687/E03131940_HC_775_Waln
ey_Review_v02_PRINT.pdf
2 “Government ‘Independent Adviser’ Who ‘Backs Ban’ on Climate and Palestine Groups has Paid Roles
with Defence and Business Lobbyists”, Byline Times, https://bylinetimes.com/2024/05/17/government-
independent-advisor-who-backs-ban-on-climate-and-palestine-groups-has-paid-roles-with-defence-and-
business-lobbyists/

Although there have been successful prosecutions of Palestine Action members, there
have been multiple instances of charges being dropped and defendants acquitted by juries
and magistrates.”
Again, jury acquittals of those exposing complicity in genocide and war crimes are presented as
a problem to be solved.
I also refer the Committee to an example of the furious headlines that frequently accompany
such acquittals:
“Calls for Attorney General to review 'WRONG' Colston statue verdict: Fury grows over case that
should 'NEVER' have been heard in Bristol”, Daily Mail, 6 January 2022.3
The Attorney General listened to such calls, and intervened to remove the defence which had
resulted in the acquittal of the Colston 4, who toppled the statue of the slave -trader, Edward
Colston into Bristol Harbour.
There have been numerous jury acquittals in protests cases since then, most recently of a group
of medical professionals who took direct action to expose the role of JP Morgan as the arch
financier of fossil fuels, and of the Filton protestors, who targete d Elbit System in facilitating
genocide and crimes against humanity.
No doubt many in this room have strong views on these cases, in one direction or another, as
many judges do too. But it is only those who distrust democracy who distrust the independence
of juries in such cases.
This is the ulterior motive for the removal of trial by jury from protests cases: the pressure from
vested interests to stop juries acquitting those who hold them to account through direct action.
B.2 The Bill has been crafted so as to remove the right to trial by jury from protest cases
The consequence of the Bill, if passed in its present form, is that trial by jury would only be
available where the defendant would, if convicted “be likely to receive a sentence of
imprisonment or detention of more than three years for the offence or offences (taken together).”
The three year threshold is where the government would set the threshold if its intention were
to deny jury trial to peaceful protestors.
The consequence of the Government’s crackdown on peaceful protest is that hundreds have
been jailed in Britain for acts of conscience in just the last few years. A significant number of

3 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10374477/Grant-Shapps-slams-Bristol-jury-clearing-Colston-
Four-as.html

those sentences have been for three years (equivalent to that for a serious violent or sexual
offence).
Of all those cases, following appeals, there has been only one sentence of more than 3 years:
that of Roger Hallam, the co -founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, whose final
sentence was 4 years imprisonment.
Based on this precedent, a judge could say with a high level of confidence that the sentence in a
protest case was unlikely to be more than 3 years, and consequently would refuse trial by jury.
Following the High Court’s ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful, Lord
Walney, the oil and arms industry lobbyist, proposed an amendment to the Crime and Policing
Bill: “Designation and restriction of Extreme Criminal Protest Groups”. The maximum proposed
sentence?
Three years, which would combine with this Bill to deny anyone prosecuted under such a
provision the right to trial by jury.
B.3 Other evidence of the measures to stop juries reaching the wrong verdicts
Evidence of the intention to stop juries reaching the ‘wrong’ verdicts in protest cases comes also
from the previous measures they have taken to reach the same result through other means.
Previously available lines of legal defences have been withdrawn from protestors (see eg “Court
ruling erodes climate activists’ ability to defend themselves – as the planet heats up”, Guardian
2024): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/19/ruling-erodes-climate-
activists-right-protest-england-wales
Protestors have been banned from explaining the reasons for their actions, on the basis that the
context and motivation for their actions are ‘irrelevant’. In some cases, people have been jailed
just for using the words ‘climate crisis’ and ‘fuel poverty’ in their defence, contrary to the judge’s
ban on those words being used in court.
“Activists jailed for seven weeks for defying ban on mentioning climate crisis” , OpenDemocracy
2023, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/activists-jailed-for-seven-weeks-for-defying-ban-
on-mentioning-climate-crisis/
A 69 year -old retired social worker was arrested and prosecuted for upholding the principle of
jury equity on a sign outside court, precisely the same principle set in marble on a plaque inside
the Old Bailey, i.e. the principle that juries can acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience.
“Fears over right to protest after woman with sign at climate trial prosecuted” (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/19/protester-who-held-sign-outside-london-
climate-trial-prosecuted
It can be inferred that Government’s ulterior motive for the Bill is to stop juries reaching the
wrong verdicts in protest cases from the following:
● The flimsy nature of the Government’s evidential case for the ostensible motive for the
Bill
● The evidence of pressure on the Government from vested interests to put a stop to jury
acquittals in protests cases
● The threshold for the Bill provisions which appears specifically designed to deny jury trial
to peaceful protestors
● Previous failed measures to put a stop to juries reaching the ‘wrong’ verdicts in such
cases.
C. THE DEMOCRATIC IMPERATIVE TO RETAIN TRIAL BY JURY FOR PRECISELY SUCH CASES
Why are these precisely the cases where it is most important that trial by jury is retained?
The case of Clive Ponting offers a good indication. Ponting was civil servant in the 1980s, who
leaked classified information to Parliament which showed that the Thatcher government had
actively misled the public about the sinking of The General Belgrano during the Falklands War.
The judge directed that Ponting had no defence to breach of the Official Secrets Act. But the jury
acquitted him regardless.
It may have been embarrassing for the Government of the day to have its lies exposed. But who
better than a jury of randomly selected citizens to judge whether Clive Ponting should be
criminalised for getting good information to the public, when good infor mation is the lifeblood
of democracy?
The case offers a paradigm for other acts of conscience. Likewise climate activists risk their liberty
to challenge the fossil fuel industry’s decades long campaigns of disinformation. Where juries
conclude they did what was necessary to get good informati on to the public, actions made
necessary by the self -serving propaganda of vested interests, they may be reluctant to convict
them as criminals.
Such verdicts bring the conscience of ordinary people into the criminal justice system, which
should be welcomed in a democracy, committed to serving the public as opposed to private
interests.
In the words of one former law Lord:

“The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly
subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish the right to trial by jury,
for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of 12 of his
countrymen.”
This Bill is not designed to promote efficiency in the criminal justice system.
It is another step on the road to authoritarianism, designed to put a stop to the acquittals of
those who dare to expose and challenge the crimes of the powerful.

25 March 2026