Press Releases & Updates 2000

Rosie continued giving her evidence this morning, only to be interrupted within the first five minutes, and the jury sent out, by objections from the prosecution as she started to mention reasons for the acquittal in the Hawk case. The judge agreed to let her continue after explaining to the jury that they must not see the Hawk case as a precedent. After describing how she became involved with TP, she was asked what her understanding of the law was with respect to Trident, provoking another objection form the prosecution and another exit for the jury. The judge ruled that she could continue as he hadn’t ruled beliefs as irrelevant.

Rosie then explained how Trident could in no way fit in with the criteria in international humanitarian law, describing Trident as an aggressive first strike weapon used to protect Britain’s economic interests. She described the steps taken by Ploughshares to lobby and enter into dialogue with the government, and outlined the imminent threat posed by Trident in terms of accidents, near misses and the possibility of deliberate use against states such as Iraq.

She then told the jury about the job of disarmament carried out in February, saying that at the end ’we had done our job and felt satisfied’. In cross examinaton the prosecution led her through the action again, merely asking her to confirm what she had already said. He had clearly looked at a few party manifestos to prove that voting vould solve the problem, and triumphantly came up with the solution of voting for the Green Party.

After lunch Rachel started her evidence, telling of her fear in childhood of nuclear war. Her moving description of lying in bed thinking that every plane passing over could be delivering the final bomb will strike a chord with many of us. Letters of negotiation written to the government and others were refered to. The judge cut short Rachel’s description of the nature of the warheads, and her more detailed references to international law, although she was allowed to state briefly her understading of the ICJ. She spoke inspiringly about empowering people through the action to listen to their own conscience.

There was a moment of comedy when Rachel said that German judges had taken effective direct action. The judge interrupted with laughter, saying ’not by jumping into a dock, surely? I’ll have to get a wetsuit!’ Rachel waited with quiet dignity while the laughter died down to explain that they had indeed taken direct action by blockading a Pershing missile base. When asked what the effect of her actions was she replied ’It worked. We stopped Vengeance sailing’. The prosecution didn’t challenge that.

In cross examination the prosecutor attempted to imply that publicity had been an important factor in the action. Rachel persistently repeated that the intention was to disarm Trident, pointing out that there are easier ways to gain publicity.

After Rachel’s evidence the defence asked to call Ulf Panzer (one of those German judges), but this was refused on the grounds that he could not speak about matters of law and his actions were not relevant.

Defence witnesses will be heard tomorrow at 10.30.

From her days living outside the Alvis tank factory in Coventry and her political life-changing encounters with BAe Hawk disarmers Andrea Needham and Angie Zelter, to the action she took with Rachel Wenham on 1 February 1999, Rosie presented a thoughtful and moving account of her work and life.

In reply to cross-examination regarding the Vengeance action, Rosie made it clear that she expected to be arrested, charged and tried for her actions. She said, "We were not criminals running a way from what we did; what we did was true and right and proper, and we feel no shame in taking it before a court of law".

In a case that seeks to establish that the women’s action was taken in order to prevent greater crimes, Rosie James stated that "It is perfectly clear that Trident breaks every cardinal principle of international law, not to mention our gut instincts on how to behave to each other."

Despite the best efforts of the prosecution, Judge Humphries did not rule out Rosie’s evidence relating to the International Court of Justice’s 1996 Opinion on the legality on nuclear weapons. She went on to say that Britain’s possession of the Trident nuclear weapon system was based on its economic interests rather than the defence of the nation.

From the witness box Rosie James described how on the night of their disarmament action, the women had swum in darkness across the dock at Barrow, boarded the submarine despite a full security presence, and had been able to disarm radar surveillance testing equipment before handing themselves in to security.

Rosie’s co-defendant, Rachel Wenham, will appear in court and begin giving evidence this afternoon. Expert witnesses and legal arguments will be heard on Friday.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DAY OF VERDICT

In the event of a not guilty verdict and acquittal:

This would be as significant as the acquittal of the Hawks women at Liverpool Crown Court in 1996 and of the acquittal of the three women Greenock Sheriff Court in October 1999 and would mean that the court had accepted the relevance of international law in respect of Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons.

A photo-call will be held on the steps of Manchester Crown Court immediately after the court is dismissed, followed by a press conference at the Friends Meeting House, Mount Street, Manchester - this will take place two hours after the court is dismissed. Both defendants and their support team will be available for questions.

In the event of a guilty verdict:

A press conference will be held at the Friends Meeting House, Mount Street, Manchester - this will take place two hours after the court is dismissed. Representatives of the defendants will provide a written statement and will also be available for questions.

---

Printer friendly version

Home | Top