Loch Goil and Greenock Trial

UNTO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK AND LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF JUSTICIARY P E T I T I 0 N of THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD HARDIE Her Majesty’s Advocate in terms of Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

The Evidence for the Crown

The admitted Actions of the Accused

The Background of and Defence stated by each of the Accused

Ms Zelter

Legal argument on Relevancy and Competency

Ulla Roder

Ellen Moxley

The Supporting Witnesses

Argument as to the relevancy and possible competency

My Decision

Professor Boyle’s Evidence

The evidence of Judge Ulf Panzer

Professor Paul Rogers

Legal argument on relevancy relating to Professor Rogers

The Evidence of Professor Rogers

The Evidence of Professor John Boag

The Evidence of Rebecca Johnson

Crown Objection to Relevancy

Miss Johnson’s Evidence

Submissions

Ms Zelter

Mr Mayer

Mr McLaughlin

The Procurator Fiscal - Mr Webster

My Lords,

On 26 September 1999 and after sundry procedure Angela Zelter, Bodil, Ulla Roder and Ellen Moxley appeared before me for trial at Greenock Sheriff Court. You will have the Indictment before you but briefly all three were charged with (1) On 8 June 1999, on board the vessel known as Maytime moored in Loch Goil near Lochgoilhead, Argyll, wilfully and maliciously damaging the vessel by scoring windows on board Maytime with a glass cutter and attempting to drill a hole in one of the windows; (2) All three attempting to steal two inflatable life rafts from the vessel, removing the life rafts from their mountings and deploying them in the waters of Loch Goil; (3) All three maliciously and wilfully damaging equipment fixtures and fittings on board Maytime; (4) All three maliciously and wilfully damaging inter alia a quantity of computer equipment, fax machines and various other miscellaneous items, and thereafter depositing the items in the water in Loch Goil whereby they became waterlogged, useless and inoperable; alternatively, that they stole the above equipment, removed the items from Maytime and deposited the items in the waters of Loch Goil.

The first of the ladies, Angela Zelter, chose to represent herself. She was adamant that she wished this to be. Ms Ulla Roder was represented by Mr Mayer, Advocate, and Ms Ellen Moxley by Mr McLaughlin, Advocate.

Evidence for the Crown was led from the following:- Thomas O’Brien, Scenes of Crime Officer, Strathclyde Police Identification Bureau; Detective Sergeant Peter Cassidy, Ministry of Defence Police CID Clyde, HM Naval Base Clyde, Faslane, Gareloch; Robert Thompson, Clearance Diver, c/o Northern Diving Group, HM Naval Base Clyde, Helensburgh; Fraser MacKenzie, Ministry of Defence Guard, Defence Evaluation Research Agency, Loch Goil; PC Donald Blair, Clyde Marine Unit, HM Naval Base Clyde, Faslane; PC David Paton, Clyde Marine Unit, HM Naval Base Clyde, Faslane; Karen Gardner, Ministry of Defence Police, Royal Naval Armaments Depot, Coulport; DC Hazel Brooks, Ministry of Defence Police, CID Clyde, HM Naval Base Clyde, Faslane; Iain Christopher MacPhee, Barge Manager, Defence Evaluation Research Agency, Loch Goil.

For the defence, evidence was led from Ms Zelter, Ms Roder and Ms Moxley; Professor Francis Boyle, College of Law, University of Illinois, USA; Dr Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies, University of Bradford; Judge Ulf Panzer, Hamburg, Germany; Professor John Boag, Edinburgh and Ms Rebecca Johnson, London, presently working in the field of nuclear energy, arms control and international diplomacy as Managing Editor of a Publication, "Disarm Diplomacy".

Contrary to what the media might have thought (they did not attend the trial until the very last day), with the exception of one of the local journalists who usually left after one hour or so at the start of each day - (his departure usually coinciding with the next legal argument), this trial was not concerned with the possession of nuclear weapons on which of course your Lordships had issued a decision on 23 July 1999 in the case of Helen John v. PF, Dumbarton. The three ladies on trial were well aware of your decision in that respect and this became apparent early on in the trial. I was also fully acquainted with your decision having obtained a full copy of the decision prior to September. What was at issue in this trial was the state of mind of the three ladies and their understanding of international law as it related to the threat and use or deployment of nuclear weapons in Trident submarines in the months leading up to June 1999 and early June 1999 itself. The trial related to their understanding of international law based not on what fellow peace protesters or fellow members of Trident Plowshares 2000 had given them in a haphazard or inaccurate manner or from a one sided point of view but, particularly in the case of Ms Zelter and Ms Roder, on an in-depth study of international law, customary law ad bellum and in bellum at University and personal contact, and not just fleeting contact, with inter alia eminent Professors of international law, a fairly senior judge in Germany and colleagues and editors/authors of research papers, journals and periodicals, not necessarily written from "a peace protesters" point of view. With the exception perhaps of Ms Moxley who, and I may be wrong, probably relied very heavily on information which she totally trusted and relied on from her two co-accused, the women had attended many conferences, and seminars and corresponded and met with officials at the highest levels in their respective countries and indeed in other countries. Relying on the information they had gathered from all sources these three women had formed an unchallenged, sincere, unshakable view not just of the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons, except perhaps where the very survival of a country or state is at issue, but of the threat and what is perceived by many countries and states to be an ongoing threat of use of nuclear weapons by certain states and countries including the U.K, at a time when international relations in certain parts of the world were extremely unsettled, and where no good reason could be seen or had been given, though requested, on why such perceived threats were necessary. The trial also concerned the women’s unchallenged, unshakable belief and indeed fear of the Sword of the Damocles they saw suspended above the head of various peoples in the world, the hair attached to the sword capable of being cut either by the use of one nuclear weapon fired from a Trident submarine, or some awful cataclysmic accident which would affect not just people in the most horrendous ways, but the environment in general. These three women in their respective ways had done everything possible which they could think of to try and bring about disarmament of nuclear weapons. In the early part of 1999 as international relations became more unsettled, and possibly some months before that, they decided that it had become vitally necessary to do something that might be breaking the law but which could ultimately be justified in preventing or helping to prevent a much greater crime, which action was to be intimately connected with nuclear weapons as carried on the Trident submarines, even if it meant long periods of imprisonment for themselves. They were determined to do all they could to try and avert a nuclear disaster which all three felt and no doubt still felt could be imminent if things are not changed. What they did, they felt, was minuscule in comparison to the disasters which could befall countries including neutral countries in times of war if nuclear weapons were to be used or indeed in times of peace if there was to be a nuclear accident, never mind the damage to the environment. In their informed and considered opinion based on teaching, review of the law and research over a number of years, and in company with many others from all walks of life which included international lawyers and academics of the highest standing, the use, deployment and threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal except in the rarest of circumstances. What became clear relatively early on in the trial was the question of mens rea in the particular crime of malicious and wilful damage, or, put another way, the state of mind of the three ladies on the day in question and whether there was res causa. As a secondary defence they had an esto case of necessity.

The trial was fraught with problems and legal arguments. It took place over nineteen days. It did not however run from day to day without break. Nor did each day normally start on time. There were horrendous difficulties at the start as the bus which brought the three ladies from Cornton Vale travelled around other Courts including Glasgow before finally coming to Greenock. There were complications also in that the three ladies did not arrive back at Cornton Vale sometimes until late in the evening and then they were returning to Court the next day exhausted, particularly Ms Zelter who, unrepresented, had to prepare for the next day. Ms Roder developed health problems at one point and it was with difficulty that she managed to obtain medical assistance. She also had mild hearing difficulties and her command of English was not good enough to enable her to follow the trial without interpreters who fortunately were excellent. There were also bureaucratic and administrative problems initially in that there appeared to be no proper facilities or even a table on which Ms Zelter could place her productions, the Sheriff Clerk expecting her to work from the dock with her McKenzie friend, and sit in the dock leaning approximately 2 1/2 - 3 feet forwards to a narrow shelf when writing. Fortunately that problem was solved when it was agreed that Ms Zelter and her friend should sit at the table with counsel. There were minor problems also as the Disability Act came into force during the course of the trial and, not surprisingly, there were members of the public with disability who asked for arrangements to be made so that they could hear the trial, again arranged, but in the face of mild but understandable hostility from members of the Sheriff Clerk’s office who thought, probably rightly, that they were being "tested". In fact, however, although there was a considerable public presence including a Buddhist nun tapping a regular intermittent drum beat outside the Court for most of the early days of the trial, and a number of members of the public sitting listening intently to the trial, the public were no problem at all. Only on the last day when the three ladies were acquitted did I become aware of what might have been a more lively element in the company of a gentleman with "a semi punk haircut", but even those people were no trouble.

I mention this My Lords, because I would not wish you to think that what we were dealing with were what is often thought of, probably quite wrongly, as an unwashed, immature, sometimes blinkered and ill-informed group of peace protesters who in the cause of peace, and without perhaps really giving the matter considerable thought were happy to commit minor acts of vandalism knowing full well that they would be unlikely to get anywhere near the Trident submarines or the nuclear stores or any installation closely connected with Trident submarines and the nuclear warheads.

The three ladies on trial at Greenock are all members of a Group called Trident Plowshares 2000. This is a totally different organisation from the Peace Protesters Camp. They are much fewer in number, by and large probably older and more mature, more educated, and above all whatever they do is done with three thoughts in mind; it must be safe, non violent, and the members have to be accountable for their actions. You are probably fully aware of all this, but I cannot assume that this is so.

I did not know how you would wish this report to be framed but in an effort to give you the full background what I propose to do is to let you have a narrative of the evidence, and the legal arguments that took place, not just at the end but through the trial and my rulings thereto. I apologise for the delay in letting you have my report, but the only transcript of the trial I have is of the final arguments, and with a request for a report arriving at a time when Dunoon Sheriff Court was extremely busy and is still so and with it being impossible until recently to get any writing time, it has taken me a long time to read carefully through my notes and indeed the productions, which has been complicated by the fact that one of my notebooks and my copy productions were mislaid in Greenock Sheriff Court together with all my copy productions until comparatively recently. I have given headings to various sections of the report and, where I thought it might be helpful, I have also given the date and times of legal arguments should you consider it necessary to refer to the recording of the arguments or evidence.

The Evidence for the Crown None of the Crown evidence was really in dispute. I would refer your Lordships to five Joint Minutes of Agreement dated 27 September 1999 and one Joint Minute of Agreement dated 6 October 1999. You will note that this last Joint Minute related to an agreed value of all the items removed from the barge known as Maytime. If the three ladies had not been acquitted that last Joint Minute would have required to be amended to take account of the withdrawal by the Crown of charge 2 relating to life rafts. The five earlier Joint Minutes covered the

evidence of DC John Glass of the Ministry of Defence Police who took photographs of two life rafts, the evidence of DC Stuart Chambers with the Ministry of Defence Police, Clyde Marine Unit based at Faslane who on Wednesday 9 June 1999 was on board a police launch Millennium in Loch Long off the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport and who found a number of items all listed scattered in but floating on the waters of the loch. He took all the items on board where they were labelled bagged and tied and thereafter conveyed by police launch to Loch Goil for delivery to Crown witness DC Guy Brown. At approximately 3.50 on Monday 15 June Crown witnesses PC Andrew Stewart, PC John Coleman both of the Ministry of Defence Police, Clyde Marine Unit were on patrol and recovered a computer monitor from the shore and on Tuesday 15 June 1999 possession of a number of other items was taken, all found lying on the foreshore opposite the mouth of Loch Goil. On Wednesday 7 July 1999 PC John Ingam with the Ministry of Defence Police, Clyde Marine Unit was on patrol in Loch Long when he saw and recovered a visual display unit lying on the beach in the area of Port Dornage. The next Joint Minute covers the evidence that would have been given by James Bell and Andrew Davidson, both forensic scientists as it related to clothing worn by the accused, and a fibre lift recovered from a cut hole in the wire cage in the laboratory on the barge known as Maytime. The next Joint Minute covered the evidence which would have been given by four finger print officers relating to impressions found on Maytime, which finger prints could be traced back to Ms Zelter and Ms Moxley, and the fifth Minute of Agreement related to a joint report by forensic scientists, Gail Connolly, and Anne Ruth Ramage, referring to boots and clothing of Ms Roder and Ms Zelter, and gel lifts taken by Crown witnesses Thomas O’Brien and Roderick McDonald. The sixth Joint Minute of Agreement related to property removed sometime between 4.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. on 8 June 1999 from the barge Maytime being the property libelled in charges 1 and 3 of the Indictment and, all owned by the Defence Evaluation Research Agency, the total value of that property for replacement or possible repair amounting to approximately £80,000.

The rest of the Crown evidence was as follows:- In the evening of 8 June 1999 an MOD civilian security guard, Mr McKenzie, was on duty. He was based at Douglas pier on the shore of Loch Goil. The barge Maytime owned by the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (otherwise known as DERA) was moored approximately 500 metres from the pier. At approximately 9.45 p.m. during his shift Mr McKenzie noticed a small inflatable with an engine drifting south near the barge Maytime. He thought it was odd. He made enquiries to see if contractors were working on Maytime. He then noticed movement on the barge and saw one person. That alerted him to make a number of other telephone calls, in particular to the barge master, Mr MacPhee and the site manager, Mr Mcinnes. While doing that he saw a large white object coming from the top of Maytime from the north side of the vessel. It appeared to go up and then down into the water with a splash. He also noticed small debris floating south towards the mouth of the loch. At about 10.10 p.m. he telephoned the Clyde Marine Unit at Faslane who had access to boats and they agreed to dispatch a launch to investigate. Meantime Mr McKenzie kept watch with his binoculars. He saw other movement but otherwise matters were fairly quiet until suddenly the noise increased and he could hear very loud banging metallic noises - hammering and clanging. He could not see who was making the noise. He then became aware of two persons on Maytime but he could not tell who they were or whether they were male or female. After that the police came. Mr McKenzie’s tour of duty finished at 6.36 a.m. on 9 June and when he left the police launch was still there. He had seen nobody going to the barge Maytime nor coming away again.

James Byres of the Ministry of Defence Police based at Faslane was on duty in the late evening of 8 June. He was one of the crew of the police launch Agility and at 10.25 p.m. on that day he and colleagues, Blair and McCallum, were just off Coulport in Loch Long. They received a message to go to Loch Goil. Eventually they were directed to go to the barge Maytime. On the way there they came across a Gemini, a small rubber boat, drifting in Loch Goil heading in a southerly direction with the tidal flow from Loch Goil. He also saw a number of small boxes drifting along. No one was in the dinghy, It was recovered. They pulled up alongside the barge Maytime at about 2300 hours and as they were coming alongside the Sergeant shone a searchlight on the barge and they could see three ladies on the top deck. The witness and PC Blair went on to Maytime.

The ladies came down to meet them and helped them berth their boat. When the witness and Sergeant Blair boarded Maytime they became aware as they walked around that a crime appeared to have been committed. They saw another life raft drifting in the water. A window had been scored and another looked as if it had been "battered a wee bit". The scratches on the windows were like scores as if someone had been trying to cut their way in and the hole in one of the windows was about one quarter of an inch in diameter and looked as if it had been made with a hammer and chisel. They also noticed another life raft still attached by its painter to the barge. They also saw three bags of tools, and subsequently the bags of tools and the ladies were taken on to the launch Agility. The three ladies were advised that they were under arrest for malicious mischief. They were then helped onto the launch, taken into the cabin and when they were seated the three ladies were cautioned by the witness but made no reply. He was readily able to identify the three ladies in court: indeed Ms Zelter actually helped him by holding her hand up. Once on the launch the ladies were asked if they would like a cup of tea which the witness made for them and brought it to them. What followed was lighthearted conversation in which the ladies made no secret of doing what they had done and explained why they had done it and how they had got into the laboratory area. They also explained that they had tried to use the barge’s lifeboats to get back to the shore but had run into difficulties. A more detailed search was later made of the barge when it was noticed that banners had been placed on the barge. At about 2310 hours the witness and his colleagues were joined by two other officers in a RIB. The three ladies were eventually taken back to the processing centre at RNAD Coulport. The witness confirmed that throughout the ladies were chatty, talkative, lighthearted and totally co-operative. His account was corroborated by the colleagues who were with him. PC David Paton of the MOD Police, Clyde Marine Unit was in his RIB in Coulport on duty at about 10.45 p.m. when he was called to "an incident" in Loch Goil. He arrived at the barge Maytime at about 11. 10 p.m. approximately. He there found his colleagues. He later returned to land to pick up witness MacPhee, the barge master, and then returned to Maytime with MacPhee. MacPhee unlocked the doors to the laboratories and he, Paton and another officer entered. PC Paton thought that the laboratory looked brand new, it was so clean and tidy. There were four benches inside the door and there were pamphlets on the benches together with tinsnips or bolt cutters which were on the table. Later he saw a cage in the laboratory with a hole cut in the mesh on the cage. Apart from the pamphlets and tools on the table he could see no other moveable property. The whole place was completely clean. This witness also noticed balloons and banners on Maytime which Mr MacPhee, the barge master, asked to be taken down and that was done. The barge master asked that they be taken down as he thought that there might be press in the area and was clearly embarrassed concerning that. The witness agreed that the barge master was not a happy man; it was thought that there might have been a breach of security, and although the witness stated MacPhee showed no signs of being angry - he was "controlled" - there was "a whiff of embarrassment". Later the witness indicated that he was given a direct order to replace the signs and banners as they had been before being taken down. The witness also agreed that anything to do with safety equipment like fire extinguishers, life jackets, a burns kit and first aid box had been left untouched. The only thing out of place was a broken mug which had contained coffee and which was lying partly under a bench and partly under a chair. Whether that had been broken accidentally or smashed to the ground was not known.

The barge master, Mr. Ian MacPhee, who was employed by DERA gave evidence that on Tuesday, 8 June he finished work at about 4.30 p.m. At the conclusion of his day’s work he locked all the external doors on Maytime. At about 10.30 p.m. he received a telephone call from Mr Fraser McKenzie at Douglas Pier and as a result of that he travelled to Douglas Pier and got there at about midnight where he was met by the MOD police. As a result of information given to him by them he went out to the vessel Maytime with two MOD police officers. He boarded the Maytime with them. The first thing he noticed was a number of banners tied on to the handrails. A hatch was opened, as was a window. All had been closed and there had been no banners on the handrails when he left. The window which was open was on the side which could not be seen from the buildings at Douglas Pier. The window had been opened from the inside. The windows were the only insecure means of entry and exit on the barge. The doors were still secure. On entering the laboratory area Mr MacPhee noticed that the padlock on the door had been tampered with. As they walked through the laboratory area Mr MacPhee noticed that all the desks and tables were clear. There was no equipment left on board. He opened all the cupboards and found nothing had been left in them. He noticed the cage to the winch room had been cut and he noticed that all the paperwork and equipment in connection with the laboratory was missing. By going through all the photographs, being Crown Production 1, he was able to point out that the carousel, which contained electrical components, was empty. Desks that had contained electronic equipment were empty and bins in a cupboard had gone. There was nothing left in the machine area. He noticed that there were photographs, documents and tools all laid on a table. Cables had been cut, switches broken off and outside other damage was noted. Apart from a hole in the window and a score on a window the arm of the crane had a chain and padlock on it. The controls had been contaminated. Later he discovered that certain manuals were missing as were other items including cabling, small components - in fact anything to do with the work being carried out on the barge. On being shown a video taken by one of the police divers he was able to point out items of equipment lying at the bottom of the loch which had been on the barge. He was also able to confirm that the tools left on the table in the laboratory area were not the property of DERA. It was later conceded by this witness and others that not all property on the barge had in fact been removed. Painters had been working on the barge and no part of their equipment or tins of paint had been touched. As mentioned above safety equipment on board had been left exactly where it was. Nothing in the galley area seemed to have been touched, or fire equipment or furniture. The only items which were missing were those items directly connected with work being carried out on Maytime. Outside the only items touched were those items like cranes and padlocks to laboratories and operation controls which clearly operated the crane and winches which, it emerged later, were used in the course of research work on the barge by lifting and lowering model submarines. Details of the damaged equipment outside can be seen in the book of photographs referred to above.

In the course of evidence it emerged that Maytime worked closely in conjunction with another barge known as Newt which was anchored a short distance away from Maytime but was capable of moving around in Loch Goil. The witness Cassidy was clearly very reluctant to state what was the purpose of the two barges and whether they were inter-linked. He stated that he was reluctant to answer questions on this because, he said, of security reasons. It was at this point that there then followed a legal argument as to whether such evidence was relevant.

Outwith the presence of the jury Mr. McLaughlin explained that for the purposes of his defence it was necessary to establish exactly what the barge Newt did and its connection with Maytime and indeed the connection between the two barges, Maytime and Newt, and Trident 11 submarines. It was critical that the defence could establish a link between the two barges and Trident. There was also in fact a reference to Newt, though not by name, in charge 3 on the penultimate line where there is a reference to "an adjacent platform". Mr. McLaughlin explained that he did not want to establish exactly how Newt worked or cause any breach of confidentiality and he expected that Mr MacPhee, the barge master, rather than Mr Cassidy would be able to concede that there was and still is a link between Maytime, Newt and Trident. So far as he was aware there was no question of any public immunity certificate being in existence in relation to Mr MacPhee but he would wish to seek the Crown’s assurance on that and requested an adjournment which was sought and granted.

When the Court resumed, still outwith the presence of the jury, I was told a very full discussion had taken place between counsel for the defence, Ms Zelter and the Procurator Fiscal. As a result of those discussions the Crown had conceded a link in the past between Newt, Maytime and Trident and maybe in the future but the present position was not known. The Crown were willing to incorporate their position concerning that in a Joint Minute which could be read to the jury, so that for the avoidance of doubt it was accepted that Maytime was linked to Trident. It was also accepted that Mr MacPhee, the barge master, would be asked similar questions to establish the connection and that further he might be asked questions concerning information downloaded from the DERA website which had been lodged as a defence production. It was expected that Mr Cassidy the present witness would not answer further questions even if they were put again but nevertheless the Procurator Fiscal would read out the document to him. This position was acceptable to Mr McLaughlin and Ms Zelter. Mr Mayer, however, said that he wished his colleague’s question to be answered and that furthermore, while he welcomed the proposal of a Joint Minute on behalf of his client he wished to make it clear that "personal beliefs of a subjective nature" (which had been mentioned by the Procurator Fiscal) "formed no part of this defence. The defence is necessity borne of objective understanding.". He was anxious about the jury’s last impression of the witness refusing to answer his colleague’s question on the basis of security, but I ruled that he himself had not chosen to ask the question in cross-examination and if his colleague was now agreeing to a Joint Minute with the Crown on the point and the opportunity to ask similar questions of Mr MacPhee later, then Mr Mayer was too late to insist on the witness asking Mr McLaughlin’s question. When Mr McLaughlin’s cross-examination continued the witness was again asked the same question if there was a direct link between Newt and Trident but his answer was the same. He was referred to Crown production 16 and in particular a document contained therein being an article relating to DERA downloaded from the DERA website. He was also shown another document contained in Crown production 16, namely an article in the Herald newspaper of 15 May 1999 headed "Chinese spies... Trident Stealth". The witness refused to comment on the documents other than to say he had seen them but not necessarily read them. He did, however, confirm that he would concede that Maytime was owned by DERA, an MOD agency, and further that it was in the public domain that Maytime had been fitted out as a research laboratory to deal with submarines but other than that he was clearly unwilling to give any information concerning the link between Maytime, Newt and Trident.

When Mr MacPhee gave evidence he too was reluctant to answer questions but when the information from the DERA website was put before him he conceded the importance of Maytime in the field of techniques, that it was a research facility to develop new sonars, it was not operational in trying and testing new techniques but it would be probably fair to say that without the research done on Maytime there would never be any operational work. He further conceded that Maytime and Newt were equally important and acknowledged the link between the two. He did give further information confirming that the work on the two barges relate to acoustic in-water measurement, and Newt measured returns from targets which could be submarines. Research had included the Trident submarines but although his qualifications and expertise were in electronic engineering and he had been in marine engineering for at least the last fifteen years, his replies on other matters were evasive or occasionally to the effect that "he was not qualified to answer". Only reluctantly at the very end, having had defence productions put to him, namely all the information downloaded from the DERA website, did he agree that acoustic research was done in connection with Trident submarines.

Before I depart from the Crown evidence I should perhaps comment on the evidence given by DC Hazel Brookes. She and Detective Sergeant Cassidy interviewed each of the three ladies under tape recorded conditions and under caution. They were also lodged as productions. Neither Ms Zelter nor Ms Roder gave a particularly full statement, indicating that there were certain questions they did not wish to answer as of course they were entitled to do. But Ms Moxley was much more forthcoming.

When cautioned and charged with malicious damage on board Maytime and given full details of that charge Ms Zelter replied "yes" and asked the officer for something be done about nuclear weapons, but unfortunately I did not catch the full reply which was quite lengthy. In answer to the charges concerning the life rafts she replied "Yes, same as before". Ms Moxley’s replies to the same charges were (a) "I was acting legally to prevent illegal war crimes being prepared" and to the charges concerning the life rafts "We did not steal the life rafts, both of them have been recovered". In reply to the first charge Ulla Roder replied "No" and to the second charge relating to theft "I don’t think I have stolen anything."

In court all three ladies gave their version of what they actually did on the day in question. And before turning to the evidence adduced for the defence it might be helpful to know what they freely admitted in court to doing on board Maytime.

The admitted Actions of the Accused Ms Zelter explained that she and her two co-accused met as a group about five months before the actual incident. After considering and rejecting other sites in connection with nuclear weapons, they decided to carry out their action in Scotland and in particular to concentrate on the barges Maytime and Newt in Loch Goil because of their very close association with the Trident nuclear submarines. The three ladies did not reach Newt on the day in question because their own inflatable had started to deflate, they had forgotten their air pump, and they could not get the two life rafts from Maytime to work. They also decided to carry out their disarmament action on the barges because they knew the submarine Vengeance had been delayed in Barrow after it had been "disarmed" by other Plowshares 2000 members earlier. They knew, however, that Vanguard would be going to Loch Goil for tests in which the laboratories on Maytime and Newt would be involved, and by going to Maytime and Newt on Loch Goil the three ladies felt they could perhaps delay the arrival of Vanguard into Loch Goil and thus prevent one quarter of nuclear arms being available for deployment in that particular submarine for some time. They were also aware that the other three actively deployed nuclear submarines in the Trident fleet needed to use the DERA laboratory on a regular basis for noise range check ups and maintenance. She referred to the full text of the statement which had been signed by all three of them making clear their aims and objectives and state of mind at that particular time and which they had left on Maytime, now Crown productions 17, 18, 19 and 20.

On 8 June at about 7.00 p.m. she and her co-accused launched a small inflatable boat from Lochgoilhead, took it to the barge Maytime and boarded the east side of Maytime. They found a window which could be unbolted from the outside and they thereby gained access to the main room on the barge. They saw that the quickest way to make sure that equipment could not be used for "illegal purposes" would be to disconnect the equipment and throw it in the loch. They took and threw into Loch Goil everything moveable which they considered was connected with the research work on the Trident submarines and nuclear weapons and whatever they could move in that connection. They cut into the heavy metal cage where the control boxes and winch mechanisms for the model submarines seemed to be situated and cut the wires in the boxes and hammered on the electrical services to make them unusable. They placed a mixture of syrup and sand and polish on the winch mechanism and then placed three banners on the barge to explain to police, security and members of the public what they were doing. They then made sure that they left the laboratory room very tidy and laid out on the tables their joint statement, video (which was not shown in court as it did not seem to be entirely relevant and related more to the history of the peace movement), their handbook known as Tridenting and various pamphlets including pictures, all of which were Crown productions. They also left some of their tools which can be seen in the Crown production No. 1 relating to the photographs. They made a careful distinction between safety and other equipment. As there had been some evidence led about a broken mug with coffee in it referred to above Ms Zelter pointed out that she made a distinction between the equipment in the laboratory and the living areas and did not throw any mug on the floor although she did see similar mugs in the kitchen. Having dealt with the laboratory they then saw a separate room outside on the barge. That room seemed to be a control room. They noticed that there were computer monitors and other equipment in that other locked room which looked as if it was part of the overall operation on Maytime. They tried to enter that room but could not cut through the padlock. They then tried to cut the glass but it was taking a very long time so they gave up. In fact they thought their time on the boat would be very limited. So, after discussion, they decided to make their way to Newt but having gone to where they had tied up their own boat and having found it deflated they realised they could not do so unless they used the life rafts on board Maytime. So they untied their own boat and let it drift away in the hope that other supporters would eventually find it and be able to make use of it. With some considerable care the ladies tried to follow the instructions for releasing the Maytime life rafts. The first one landed upside down in the water. The three ladies did not realise there were oars underneath it and thought that they could not use it. So they let it drift away. The second life raft did not inflate at all so that was unusable. They were then hungry and exhausted so they had a picnic on the top deck of Maytime to decide what to do next as by then their presence still did not seem to have been noted. As they discussed why the security was so lax especially as they had given advanced notice to the Ministry of Defence of the list of possible targets they intended to disarm, they watched the sunset. When still nothing happened they started to try and gain entry again into the control room and were just starting to make progress when the police arrived. As soon the police came within earshot they stood by the side, greeted them, told them who they were and asked them if they wanted them to come into the police launch. They assisted the police to tie up to Maytime, entered the boat and then explained everything they had done, including what had happened with the life rafts. She described the police at all times as being calm and courteous. In the boat, and on the way back to Coulport and indeed while in police custody, she and her colleagues were totally open about what they had done. Her account of what was done on Maytime was not contradicted in any way by Ms Roder or indeed Ms Moxley. Their accounts were similar. All three ladies played an equal part and all three were members of Ploughshares 2000 and had signed the same "pledge".

The Background of and Defence stated by each of the Accused Ms Zelter Ms Zelter was aged 48 at the time of the trial. She is a widow with two children and gave her occupation as a potter and gardener. She normally lives in Norfolk. After completing her first degree at the age of 21 she married and went with her husband to Africa. Working with her husband she quickly became involved in issues of poverty in the world, the forests of the Cameroons and she began to work in a voluntary capacity in various ways associated with indigenous peoples, forests and peace. She has taken part in many campaigns over the years in England, in Malaysia, Canada, Finland and Scotland and was quite open that she had been imprisoned in the past for what she had done. In the course of such work she met persons, one lady in particular, who had been affected by nuclear fallout as a result of tests on the Bravo Isles in 1954, and had seen with her own eyes the awful consequences in terms of illness of persons affected by such fallout. She explained that she felt she then needed more information on Nuclear problems so she decided to take a masters degree in peace studies at Bradford University where she met Professor Paul Rogers who later gave evidence as an expert witness. She carried out an in-depth study of nuclear weapons and international policies while at Bradford and became convinced of the potential danger of a massive nuclear war and, in particular, of the imminence of danger from nuclear weapons, not just from the use or threat of nuclear weapons in war but also from the danger of genuine accidents concerning nuclear weapons on which subject she had undoubtedly done considerable research and written articles. She was quite clear in her mind that the use or threat of nuclear weapons was illegal, while acknowledging as the International Court of Justice had done, that their use might just be justified if the very survival of a state was at risk. That acknowledgment, however, was grudgingly given, and while she and her two co-accused respected the decision of the High Court in the Helen John case and agreed that the International Court had said nothing about possession of nuclear weapons being illegal, she and her fellow supporters could not see the point of having nuclear weapons if in fact they could never be used. Then she explained that she felt it essential that the jury understand that at any moment an accident might occur with appalling consequences and attempted to refer to defence production H4. There then followed a lengthy argument outwith the presence of the jury as to the admissibility of the document and such evidence. Legal argument on Relevancy and Competency The Crown explained that the document related to alleged incidents going back all over the world from 1956 onwards and if the document was admitted it would introduce what might have happened or what may happen. He could not see that that bore any relevancy to the charges on the indictment. Mr McLaughlin said that the critical question was the knowledge in the mind of the accused in this case, not just of Ms Zelter but the other two ladies as well. Knowledge did not come from the air but through research and especially from direct influences like Professor Boyle, Professor Rogers and the understanding which Ms. Zelter, had gained through a masters degree at Bradford University. If it was relevant to mens rea, i.e. the state of mind of the accused at the time, the article which was three pages long might be helpful insofar as it related to the immediate danger in which the accused felt at the time. Mr Mayer agreed. He felt that the submission by the Crown was ill conceived. It was not the quantity of years covered by the article but what happened during those years which led the witnesses to a certain state of mind. It could not be correct only to go back to what was in the minds of the accused at midnight on 8 June and not look at everything that had led up to that state of mind. It would be an odd kind of university degree which did not provide testing of historical understanding on the subject matter and to have an intellectual appreciation of that. The understanding which the witness had arrived at on 8 June had led her and her colleagues to act in a way which was protected under international law and any objection to the witness demonstrating how she arrived at that state of understanding would pull the rug from the defence.

The argument continued after the lunch break when all parties had time to consider the matter further. Mr McLaughlin addressed me first and said that the importance of the matter was Angela Zelter’s knowledge at the material time and in that regard document H4 was relevant in its entirety. Mr McLaughlin pointed out that I had earlier ruled that the document seemed to contain a mixture of fact and supposition and that there was a degree of hearsay in the document and that part of the document might be inadmissible but some might be admissible because it would indicate the accused’s state of mind. He had now seen the document again and consulted his colleague, Mr Mayer. He found it difficult to differentiate between fact and supposition and gave examples. However, much of the rest of the document seemed to contain fact and although Miss Zelter had no direct dealings with matters contained in the document she had read about it in journals and articles. There would be experts led later who would have greater leeway to talk about matters because of their status but Ms Zelter was progressing quite rapidly to legal aspects and if she could not read to the jury her thoughts on accidents based on how accidents have happened over the years, the jury might think it was disjointed in terms of chronology of the event. So here there were some factual elements, though hearsay, and it would be more meaningful to read those parts out. Mr McLaughlin would say it was admissible hearsay. Ms Zelter was relying on media information to inform herself. Judicial knowledge could in fact also be hearsay.

There then followed an argument on hearsay evidence. Mr Mayer referred me to Field on the Law of Evidence in Scotland, the 1998 version at paragraph 15.5 - Statements regarding Physical or Mental Condition. Even if Ms Zelter were to read out what other people might have written he felt that would be covered by the exception to the hearsay rule. State of mind was the issue in the present case. As the trial had progressed the texture and the focus of the defence had become more subtle. One of the strands was the question of mens rea for malicious mischief, charges 1, 3 and 4, and the defence position was that there was no mens rea. In fact in the minds of the accused they maintained that they were justified and had res causa. So the kernel of the case and the pivoting point between the prosecution and the defence case is mens rea. Alternatively, if I was not persuaded that that was so the only way to resolution would be for the document to be subject to judicial comment line by line. He pointed out that the principal applied to both other accused and in particular his client and he felt that the matter should be ruled upon now. In all this Ms Zelter agreed.

In reply the Crown agreed that the exception which Mr Mayer had mentioned was basically correct and if that was so the article in its entirety should go before the jury. However, the court had to balance the interest of fairness to the accused and public interest because if in effect the jury were to be given every single production which it was said had contributed to the accuseds’ state of mind then the court would be delayed with a plethora of anti-nuclear propaganda and a general debate on nuclear arms.

In reply Mr Mayer pointed out that the Crown submission could be met when it considered the question of credibility - whether the jury believed Ms Zelter had really read all the documents. So public interest could be balanced by cross-examination and whether the jury believed Ms Zelter. At this point Ms Zelter pointed out that two of her productions had been withdrawn from the jury already and the remaining two were in the Crown Productions. She explained that one of her difficulties was that the mindset of "officials" was that Trident was legal. As far as propaganda was concerned it was important for the jury to realise that the remaining documents were not emotional nuclear propaganda. She herself had been studying for twelve years. In the last four months leading to the trial she had been carefully trying to make her statement as succinct as possible and drawing on as few references as possible. Her whole statement, if it could be read out, would take only one and a half hours and considering all that they were trying to prevent she considered that she had been minimal in the way she had presented her case. She had tried to cut her paper shorter but had not been able to. She pointed out that she had written the document H4 at the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999. In her mind she was relying on three separate defences, necessity, a reasonable excuse, and upholding international law. She was not raising a defence of sincere belief.

Having heard all parties I allowed Ms Zelter to proceed and to produce document H4. I had already made it clear that I did not wish the defence to stray into areas of propaganda or sensationalism but to concentrate on the defence indicated by counsel for the other two accused, namely the question of mens rea and the mind set of the three ladies concerned which was referred to throughout the trial by counsel and Ms Zelter as "the international law defence", so far as it related to nuclear weapons, with a back-up case of necessity. When Ms Zelter mentioned reasonable excuse, I understood that what she really meant was her state of mind and her understanding acquired over a very long period prior to 8 June which directly gave rise to her actions on that day. Furthermore she was at a disadvantage in appearing for herself, although it was obvious by then that she was receiving considerable help from Mr Mayer and Mr McLaughlin. She had agreed previously to stick to certain guidelines which I had indicated about certain information to be placed before the jury concerning propaganda and an over-dramatisation of the effects of nuclear weapons and had agreed to certain documents being withdrawn. I was not minded to put obstacles in her way which might just have precluded some part of a very reasonable defence, and certainly I did not wish her to be prejudiced if she could not give the jury her knowledge about accidents which had happened.

Ms Zelter then proceeded to outline her defence. She spoke first of all about the possibility of accidents happening with nuclear weapons and those accidents which had happened. She believed that we were all in danger because of the possibility of accidents and the difficulty of knowing when an accident might occur and the impossibility of predicting any accidents. Based on her knowledge of accidents she had a rational fear of a catastrophe. She was not alone in that fear which was shared by many others including a top U.S General Commander in Chief, General Lee Butler, who had been engaged in strategic nuclear forces including Trident 2. Professor Boyle had referred to the General whose speeches were in the public domain. In 1996, two years after he had resigned as Commander in Chief, the general explained why he had become a public proponent of nuclear abolition. He was speaking at the time to sixteen generals and she read out part of the text of his speech. There was a similar speech the text of which was again in the public domain made in February 1998 and also in March 1999. I regret that I did not catch the production number when Ms Zelter read from a document, but I think it may be part of Defence Production Reference 22, a copy of which I do not have.

She outlined all that she had done by way of peaceful legal means to bring an end to nuclear weapons. She explained how she had tried to get the police to take up her cause of what she perceived was the illegality of nuclear weapons and how she herself had tried to raise action through the courts in England but on each occasion had been denied access to that remedy. She had been given different excuses by different magistrates being either that it was not in the public interest or that it was frivolous and vexatious, or the Crown would take over the proceedings she had already raised but then drop them on the basis that it was not worth proceeding with them. She had tried a direct approach to the Attorney General but was told it was the job of the police to make enquiries about her claim. So she went to the Norfolk police and wrote to the Chief Constable who told her, that he was not in a position to do anything about international defence policies although she pointed out that there were a series of international laws which pointed to the illegality of nuclear weapons. She organised a campaign with names and encouraged local people to approach their courts in the hope that some magistrates would have the independence and courage to confront the problem. Each time she ran up against a brick wall. Fifty different approaches were made to magistrates’ courts around the country. On some occasions clerks admitted that she and her colleagues appeared to have a good case but nothing was done. Around the same time an organisation known as Pax Legalis was working along the same lines. They had been formed in 1984 and had been trying for ten years to have matters decided by the courts. Their understanding was that there was an ongoing conspiracy to commit serious crime and since the prosecuting authorities were not taking action it was their right and duty to take legal action. Pax Legalis were also of the opinion after cases had been stated and postponed that the judicial system was unwilling to interfere. Quite a few approaches had been made to the Lord Advocate on similar lines in Scotland with the same official denial. Later with others she was asked to form a charity - The Institute for Law and Peace. She began to produce materials on the law relating to peace and war laws. She attended Red Cross conferences. As part of an international law and peace delegation she went to the first gathering of lawyers and international delegates in the Hague when it was decided to make an approach to the International Court of Justice to ask for an advisory opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons. At that conference she met Professor Boyle (later to give evidence in her trial) and Judge Ulf Panzer (who also gave evidence). The approach to the International Court of Justice was an initiative suggested by a Mr Sean McBride and taken up by a judge from New Zealand, developed into a world court project and after many problems, including a great deal of pressure from the Nuclear Weapon States who tried to stop the process, the UN General Assembly finally asked for and received the Advisory Opinion, which document, together with all the dissenting opinions was produced, being production H7. Ms Zelter stated that that information clarified the law relative to nuclear weapons, i.e. that they were generally illegal. They highlighted two principles of international law that can never be broken even in an extreme case of self-defence. Those two cardinal principles are, first that States must never make civilians objects of attack and must as a consequence never use weapons incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets; second, it was prohibited to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants and prohibited to use weapons causing them such harm or uselessly aggravating their suffering. Her opinion, corroborated by expert witnesses, was that no use of Trident could possibly conform to those requirements, thus they were illegal. She spoke to an article dated 20 August 1999 which appeared in the Herald which reported the release of secret papers which calculated British nuclear bombs would kill as many as three million persons in the USSR. So soon after the Nuremberg tribunal and after the holocaust she found her own government planning mass destruction of people. She said that she found it terrifying that nothing seemed to have been learnt from the past. In her view it meant that the government was and still is so devoid of humanity and imagination that it cannot work out how to defend our country in a civilised manner. In her opinion she had no doubt at all that somewhere in the recesses of Whitehall there would still be someone who had calculated how many people could die if Trident missiles were fired on purpose or by accident. That information would be classified but she felt that she could not wait for thirty years for declassification to find out. The present deployment of 144 Trident warheads could lead to the death of thirty million people including eight million children. It seemed callous and unfeeling to her to even mention that but she was in a court charged with various crimes and she saw that it was of the utmost importance to prove to the jury that her actions were lawful because they were necessary to prevent the horrendous criminal plans of her government. She felt that the present Trident policy was a war crime against humanity. Her disarmament was trying to prevent mass murder and was, therefore, justifiable and lawful.

At this point, my Lords, I should perhaps say that the above account of her views on the matter were given without emotion but as with all her evidence in a calm dispassionate manner.

She then turned to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. She said that after the publishing of the Advisory Opinion in response to many requests, the UK government made it quite clear that it would still not disarm its nuclear weapons. She considered this in all the circumstances irresponsible, undemocratic and shameful and in her view directly undermining international law. She felt that the nuclear states were holding all the others to ransom and abusing their power. This was one of the main reasons why she worked with others to start a project based directly on observing international law - hence Trident Plowshares 2000 Peoples Campaign on Nuclear Disarmament.

Ms Zelter then went on in detail to explain how she felt that nuclear weapons were unlawful and why in particular the British Trident weapons were unlawful. She carefully spoke on the International Opinion itself and the dissenting Opinions and then outlined all the sources of international law which were considered by the International Court when issuing their Advisory Opinion. She referred to Gordon Criminal Law, 2nd Edition, Pages 419 and 834 (her Defence Reference 3) and the cardinal-principles referred to in the Advisory Opinion. She spoke of the binding nature of international law and ended by saying that she contended that it was really for the prosecution to prove that Trident was not illegal. If they could not it was arguable that she had proved one of the planks in the argument for disarming Maytime. She acknowledged that there was one possible loophole left by the International Court in their Opinion, i.e. that a country or state could possibly use a nuclear weapon if their very survival was at stake but also pointed out that the President of the International Court of Justice had said that that in no way could be interpreted as a half open door to the recognition of the legitimacy of a threat or use of nuclear weapons. She did acknowledge that the Advisory Opinion of the International Court was just that - advisory - but at the same time given the very nature of the court and the careful consideration given to the whole question of nuclear weapons, including a review of all enactments and treaties which might or did have a bearing on the matter, it must be very persuasive. I have, of necessity, given a synopsis of all that she said. Ms Zelter may be disappointed by that and I would not wish her to think that by so doing I discounted her argument in any way. If your Lordships wish to hear what she said, her evidence on this particular matter was given on 8 October and commenced at about 1600 hours, possibly later. She addressed me very fully also referring in particular to a number of her Defence Productions References 13, 14 and 17 and in detail on the Opinion itself.

On the following day she spoke of, NATO strategy and the size of the warheads. She indicated that they were incapable of distinguishing between military and civilian targets and indeed they were not intended to do so. She acknowledged that the nuclear weapons were targeted in a way to try and deter war but pointed out that if the bluff failed and the weapons were actually used there would be a mass destruction of people. She quoted from a NATO strategy document that "the purpose of Trident is to terrorise and create incalculable risks". I do not have a note of any Defence Reference No. nor have been able to pinpoint this phrase in any of the reference numbers given by her but it is possible I could have overlooked it. In preparing this report I wondered if I had misheard her because there is a reference to the nature of nuclear weapons at Sections 35 and 36 of the IJC Opinion. In other words the whole purpose of a nuclear deterrent was to threaten mass destruction and that was criminal. She then turned again in detail to the Advisory Opinion and the individual Opinions. Following that she referred to specific facts relating to the British Nuclear Weapon System, all of which she said is in the public domain. In particular she pointed out that Scotland was home to the Trident submarines. At all times there was always one of the submarines on a twenty four-hour patrol. Each one had forty-eight warheads. Each warhead of 100 kilotonnes was approximately eight times more powerful than the bomb used to bomb Hiroshima. When one looked at the information available on the way Trident submarines were deployed it would appear that they were still principally orientated towards Russia. Again within public knowledge if one fell on Moscow three million people would die outright and there would be a massive nuclear fallout over a wide urban area. Other operational targets would seem to be the Russian nuclear submarine fleet bases. She elaborated further on this theme and the damage to the environment and said that she believed that the British Trident System was an immediate and ongoing danger to all life on the planet and furthermore a threat to international peace.

She then indicated that she believed that preparation for a war crime was in itself a crime and presented her reasoning for that in particular referring to her Production Reference 15. She then referred to the end of the cold war. The world was no longer living in its shadow. There was no longer the same threat to the UK or USA and no significant threat that she knew of to overseas territories. I should look at her Production Reference 23, the UK Strategic Defence Review, July 1998. If the survival of the UK was not under threat, the threat of Trident to others would be an unlawful threat even if the government announced that only one kilotonne of explosives would be deployed.

She then turned to the "defence of vital interest" argument, She referred to the "Rifkind Doctrine". UK Defence Strategy: A Continuing Role for Nuclear Weapons, her Production Reference 24, which referred to what the government had actually said concerning Trident with reference to the protection of economic and oil-related interests and how Trident could be used. This was not one of the objects referred to by the International Court and therefore was unlawful. She referred to what Lord Murray, former Lord Advocate, had said in a speech given in Oxford in October 1998, being reference 25 in her productions. She referred to the crisis in Iraq in February of 1998 and the talk of a possible use of nuclear weapons at that time. She referred to a House of Commons Debate on 17 February 1998 and remarks by Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary, about what Hussein should expect if he were to use chemical weapons (Her Production Reference 26). She referred to reports on what sources from the Foreign Office had indicated, i.e. that the US response would be devastating. She referred to press briefing where it was alleged that the government had not ruled out weapons of mass destruction. She referred to an interview on Radio 4 on 18 February 1998 with George Robertson when he was given an opportunity to deny that nuclear weapons would be used but did not. What was particularly worrying was that at a time when it was hinted or suggested that nuclear weapons might be used against Hussein it was not denied that they would be used. On 17 February 1998 a Trident submarine had left at an unscheduled time on patrol for an unknown destination when it was understood that nuclear weapons were being considered. Reliable informed sources indicated that Iraq certainly perceived at that time that there was a threat of nuclear weapons being used against them. Later on in the year the Trident submarine "Vanguard" made her presence obvious in the Mediterranean by appearing in Gibraltar in the last few days of November. In her view this was the sort of situation in which failure or an accident or a misunderstanding could lead to disaster. The UK and NATO were at war with Iraq in June 1999 and still engaged in bombing raids. On 8 June 1999 Britain and NATO were at war with Serbia and Kosova. The potential for unintentional disaster was very great.

She then turned to the criminality of the British deterrent policy and said that the threat of use of nuclear weapons was also criminal which was what Trident deployment and the British Government’s reliance on that was all about. She referred to her Production Reference Number 2, Professor Boyle’s paper on the criminality of nuclear weapons to which he had already referred in evidence. She then elaborated on British crimes against peace and referred to the Nuremberg Charter and that part which struck at the planning and preparation of war crimes, and the international treaties and assurances which followed. She believed that the UK had made it clear that they had no immediate intention of eliminating its Trident system. She referred to the Strategic Defence Plans and what they specified and also press revelations and in particular a report by Alan Simpson, being Reference Number 29 of her productions, concerning new refurbishment programmes at Aldermaston costing about £150,000,000, all relating to the Trident programme. She spoke also of the collaboration between France and the United Kingdom and the USA on nuclear weapons. The continuing development of new nuclear weaponry was a flagrant breach of international law and furthermore destabilising. All this had been explained in their hand book TP2000 which had been left in the laboratory on Maytime on 8 June 1999. She explained why she left the documents that she did on Maytime. She referred to the pledge signed by her and those involved with TP2000.

When the trial resumed on Wednesday 13 October she explained how she had written to the Attorney General on 9 July 1998 sending a copy to the Lord Advocate. She went over the contents of the letter. She received no reply. The letter is Defence Production H15. She stressed that she and her colleagues had done everything to be open and accountable and they had given the government and the justiciary opportunity to right the wrongs. If the government and institutions were not willing to take responsibility for righting the wrongs, i.e. getting rid of nuclear deterrents, she and her colleagues who thought in the same way as her, as global citizens, had the responsibility to act. They were not obliged to act but they had a duty to act as long as they were safe and accountable. In September 1998 she wrote an article about TP2000 which had been published in disarmament publications, read by diplomats working for disarmament. She thought that by openly publishing and saying what was happening in the Scottish District Courts this would not only inform non-nuclear countries that there was active protest and resistance in the UK against nuclear disarmament but that such a publication would be a lawful measure to bring about disarmament. She referred to her Defence Production H16.

Ms Zelter then went on to consider a separate and independent right she claimed she had under international law to prevent breaches of international law. She called it the International Law Defence as opposed to a reasonable excuse defence. She had read and considered judgements from Tokyo and Nuremberg, which judgements she relied on and which formed part of her productions. Those judgements said that individuals have international duties which transcend national obligations and that anyone with knowledge of illegal activity and having an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent crimes. She went on to explain that she had used this defence in a previous criminal case in which she had been involved, namely in Liverpool in July 1996, at the end of which trial she and her co-accused had been acquitted. She had disarmed a British Hawkjet by causing damage amounting to roughly £1.5 million pounds. She and her co-accused had learned that it was just about to be delivered to Indonesia to be used against the Timor in connection with bombings. Previous Hawks had been used in such bombings. She contended that the jury agreed that it was morally wrong to sell arms of Genocide and against international law and had hence found her and her co-accused not guilty.

She then turned to the actual "disarmament" of Maytime by herself and her two co-accused in the present trial. Earlier in my report I have indicated what she and her friends actually did on Maytime and the reasoning behind that, i.e. that all that was damaged or destroyed was intimately connected with research on Trident submarines whose purpose was illegal.

After that she explained why she and her two co-accused had not accepted bail although originally it had not been opposed. She explained that as the courts seemed to be prejudging that her and her friends’ acts were unlawful they felt that they could not sign the bail conditions. She said the sheriff (not myself) had explained to them that if they were involved in any other Trident 2000 plans, those acts could be construed as conspiracy, and they could be committing a criminal offence. So even if they were not going to be engaged in any further "disarmament action" as in the subject matter of the present trial, they would be part of a conspiracy and therefore breaking bail which they did not wish to do. For that reason they had been prepared to spend as long as was necessary in Cornton Vale until the trial was over in the hopes that the jury would agree with them that what they did on the Maytime was not criminal.

When cross-examined by Mr Mayer she explained that it had taken her twelve years of study and many meetings over those years with international lawyers to reach the state of knowledge concerning nuclear weapons which she now had. She also spent a great deal of her time updating herself on nuclear knowledge, some of which knowledge was quite difficult to obtain particularly that relating to accidents or near accidents, information concerning which might not become available until many years later. She was, however, aware of one such incident when a Trident submarine went into a dive and was within minutes of exploding. She knew about that because one of the sub-mariners on the submarine had become so upset that he blurted out the information when on duty and it was subsequently reported in the papers, and in particular the Herald. She explained that she also got a great deal of information about such incidents and what was going on with Trident from their own community network consisting of local people both in and without the forces. Other information, especially that on the Internet was quite easy to obtain.

In trying to clarify her evidence concerning the illegality, as she saw it, of the Trident weapons Mr Mayer asked her if she was familiar with the concept of cruel excess as in a self defence situation. She replied, "Not exactly". He outlined what was meant and then asked the question "Do I understand you correctly to say that whatever a person’s personal belief may be, people of the world have lived with war from time immemorial, won and lost and civilisation goes on, but a problem with Trident 2 was that if it is used, either whole or large parts of the world would be completely uninhabited for many years?". She agreed with that statement and went on to say, "like the Bikini Islands" - for thirty thousand years.

Mr Mayer then asked if the whole thrust of international law, as she understood it to be, was that even during conflict it was illegal all over the world to obliterate large parts of humanity and the planet. She replied "Yes". The next question was "So according to you there is a danger of that happening and the danger comes and goes out of Loch Goil with monotonous regularity and she replied "Yes, absolutely, yes". The next question was "prone to accidents and mistake and even to retribution by individuals who work on Trident?" and she replied, "Yes". "Sabotage?" "Yes, that has occurred" and she gave an example. Later she was asked if from her evidence and that of Professor Boyle, were we to understand her position concerning the UK Government since signing the Nuremberg Charter in London in 1946 to be that they were saying what they would do with nuclear weapons but were doing nothing? She agreed and went on to say that in her view the UK Government was hypocritical in saying what they intended to do but doing nothing and thereby undermining the whole situation, meaning a speedy ongoing process of disarmament of nuclear weapons throughout the world.

Ms Zelter explained that after the judgement from the International Court of Justice she wrote to the UK Government about their present stance. Indeed in the government’s preparation of the Strategic Defence Review they asked for public consultation and she personally, along with others, outlined the illegality of nuclear weapons as she saw it in conjunction with the whole of the UK defence policy. She agreed that she was met with a stone wall approach. She was asked what kind of danger she perceived that we as a country were in. She replied "Not were, but possibly now as we do not know when Trident weapons will be used but they are deployed". She confirmed that she had learned about the size, speed, target and effect of these warheads and she also confirmed that on 8 June, according to her perception, she and the whole country were in danger. She was asked who she intended to be the beneficiaries of her actions and she replied "All of us and the whole world".

In cross-examination by the Procurator Fiscal she explained that they first decided to target the barge Maytime in February or thereabouts. They had been considering other sites but Maytime seemed the most suitable. When she was asked if she really did consider that it was correct that there was no other reasonable alternative, she replied "Yes" and that in her mind they had tried everything. When asked if it was simply to inform the government, she replied "No" because they thought that crimes were actually being committed so they went to the local police station, the local courts and they lobbied individuals including court officials. When asked if their aim was to influence and change government policy she replied "No"; she was trying to prevent any country in the word committing mass murder. When asked if she simply wrote to United Kingdom government officials, she said that she had written not just to them but to other states. The Procurator Fiscal then asked if her efforts were restricted to government and the Trident programme, would it be true to say that she was attempting to influence the United Kingdom government in relation to policies concerning Trident nuclear weapons with an ultimate aim of ridding the UK of nuclear weapons? She agreed with that but said that her action on 8 June was directly trying to prevent a crime because many people in the past had tried to alter policies but it had never worked. She confirmed that she and her colleagues had been trying everything reasonable and legal in those endeavours. She was then asked if there was not another action she could have taken. Specifically would it not have been a reasonable alternative for her and others in her organisation of TP2000 to put up candidates for Parliament. She replied that she did not think that would help because a lot of MPs had been very pro-nuclear disarmament including Robin Cook and Prime Minister Blair who had been a member of CND. She explained, however, that once these people came into power their principles changed. She herself had also stood for election on a national level as a Green candidate and specifically non-nuclear. She was not successful. She was asked about the polls against nuclear disarmament, and the figure of 78% against nuclear weapons was put to her. She replied that the most recent poll in Scotland indicated that 85% of the Scottish population were against nuclear weapons. If that were the case, said the Procurator Fiscal, would it not be reasonable for all anti-nuclear organisations to put up candidates? Her reply to that was that it was not crime prevention. On being pressed on the matter, she said that her organisation and others did have public support. In the world community the vast majority of people have said that they want to get rid of nuclear weapons, but politics don’t allow that to work. She reiterated that she was not running a political campaign - she was trying to prevent a crime. In her opinion the UK had been threatening mass murder for a number of years, and the head of justice was to some extent simply a political employee. When asked if she could choose to change government and so get rid of nuclear weapons, she replied that she did not know if a certain government came to power it would stop nuclear weapons and that was the point of people like herself trying to do things themselves. If she and her colleagues acted safely then they could be judged by peers in a court like the sheriff court in which she stood. She was aware that governments did listen very carefully, but they were simply not changing. She and her colleagues had tried to engage the political parties of our society but that was not enough. The Procurator Fiscal continued to press her on the question of getting representation in government. She explained that she was already aware that there were quite a few non-nuclear Members of Parliament in Scotland, but at a general election it was unfortunately the position that people elected people with a whole gamut of policies. She indicated that perhaps a referendum on nuclear weapons might help and agreed with the Procurator Fiscal that it was necessary to get sufficient support from the electorate, but pointed. out that even if they did, what could she or anyone do when the government failed to keep all of its promises. She was asked was it not the case like other pressure groups that TP2000 could make themselves available to the public but instead they concentrated on direct action? She replied that the Procurator Fiscal had missed the point because there was an ongoing crime and on 8 June 1999 she was trying to prevent those crimes taking place. It was suggested to her that that was really the easy way out because it would be possible for her to stand as a Member of Parliament and say "Vote for us?". She replied that if it was that easy her organisation would have more than 143 members. In her opinion it was not an easy option. She agreed that the means proposed by the Procurator Fiscal were legal and reasonable, but so were her organisation’s ways and they had been trying the methods proposed by the Procurator Fiscal for years. It was put to her that she had ended up damaging items of property on Maytime to which she agreed. He put it to her that her intention in throwing all the various items in the loch was to make them unusable. She replied that as far as they were connected to Trident, and in her opinion they all were, that was their intention. She was asked if there were Trident submarines in Loch Goil on 8 June. She replied that there were no submarines there on that day and it would not have been safe to disarm either Newt or Maytime if Trident had been there. She agreed that she and her colleagues had tried to get into the control room on Maytime. She agreed that she had tried to cut the glass and she agreed that it had been very time consuming. She also agreed that after discussion they had decided they would try and get to the other barge, Newt. When asked if it was an afterthought that they had decided to go to Newt after they had difficulty getting into the control room of Maytime she replied that it was not and it had always been their intention, if they could, to go to Newt and disarm it, but there was always some doubt as to where Newt would be as it moved around the loch and furthermore they did not know how long they would have to disarm Maytime because of the security. They decided that as Maytime was the call facility they would disarm that barge first and then go to Newt. She conceded that on 8 June neither Maytime nor Newt were posing any immediate danger of death or severe injury to anyone, but explained that the two barges were part of a system which did impose immediate danger of death or severe injury and on that particular day (because of painting operations) they were not being used by anyone and therefore it would be safe for herself and her colleagues to go on board. Furthermore, although both were not being used on that particular date she explained that when dealing with a complex nuclear system like this the only way you could hope to bring about complete disarmament, although nuclear weapons were an immediate threat all the time, was to have a lot of people doing disarmament. There were a lot of sites but in time the whole system could be disarmed. One soldier could not win a war, but many soldiers could. She agreed with the Procurator Fiscal that by themselves Newt and Maytime posed no immediate danger, but the two barges were vital for the whole nuclear system on the submarines to work. They were essential for ongoing work on Trident and therefore needed to be disarmed. The Procurator Fiscal pointed out that there were three submarines on 8 June. Ms Zelter corrected him by saying that there were now four all laden with warheads and they were only three women and could therefore only disarm a small part, It was put to her that at least one of the four submarines would be at sea and she agreed. She also agreed that if one submarine was at sea it would be fully armed so, at the time they were on Maytime, they would not have been preventing any discharge of missiles or denuding a submarine of its cargo, to which she agreed. She also agreed that at that time their actions did not prevent one of the submarines going to sea. She explained, however, that their campaign as a whole had the capacity to disarm the system, and in their opinion, within the context of the whole, what they did could be seen as part of crime prevention. Furthermore if enough citizens pledged to continue with similar actions, eventually the whole system would be disarmed and therefore their actions were capable of crime prevention. Obviously her actions had not denuded a submarine of its firing capability, but if the laboratory on Maytime kept the submarines in the water, she and her co-accused did carry out a disarmament action. She acknowledged that submarines were in the water which she had not touched, but her action was a bit like arresting thieves. You might only be able to arrest one at a time out of many thousands, if not millions, but that did not invalidate the point of arresting one and helping to stop crime. She totally refuted the Procurator Fiscal’s suggestion that what they did was merely a gesture. She said that from the evidence given, by Mr MacPhee we had no idea what the impact her and her colleagues’ actions would be on the submarine Vengeance. The Vengeance immediately prior to 8 June was being refitted but it still had to go to Loch Goil for its trials so it was possible that delay was caused to that particular submarine in getting it up and running, if it could not be tested. When the Procurator Fiscal asked if she reckoned by that that there had been impact on one of the submarines she agreed but said that she thought probably the most important aspect of the whole action might yet be to come because if she and her colleagues were acquitted at Greenock it would send a message to the government and then they might do something. When asked if she was suggesting that the verdict of the jury in this particular trial was more important to her organisation than the effect on Trident of her actions on 8 June she replied categorically "No", that probably the most important thing was that, as a global citizen, she had to do all she could to prevent crime. Anything else was supportive. As an individual she couldn’t just stand and write letters. She had to do something even though it was not very large. What she did was all she could do with two friends, both safely and accountably. Any terrorist could blow up Maytime and Newt or indeed a submarine but what they were trying to do was to prevent a crime. She was asked if one of her motives was to cause embarrassment to the powers that be or the Ministry of Defence. She replied, "No", although she acknowledged their embarrassment about the whole legal argument against nuclear weapons, but they did not do it for that. When asked if she wanted to be caught she replied that they did not but they would love a police officer to come along and say "lets try and get something done. She pointed out that many police officers agreed that members of the peace organisation, and in particular her group, had a good case but they did not know what to do about it. She said that she and her colleagues had to stay with the damage because they were accountable but what they did was not done to be arrested or to be tried before a jury, although they knew that that might be the case. Although they were destroying things it was done to stop more destruction. She was asked if it was to get publicity with a trial before a jury. She replied that that was not the point. Her and her colleagues’ arrests were just three more to add to the list. The point was something had to be done about nuclear weapons. They were there to try and prevent mass murder, and what they did was not a crime. She was asked how long Trident 2000 had been existence and she replied that the group was launched in May 1999 although a group had got together the previous summer and decided to talk to the government first because they knew it would be more difficult if they did a launch project first.

The Procurator Fiscal then turned to prior use of, nuclear weapons, apart from testing. She agreed that apart from accidents nuclear weapons had last been set off in Nagasaki and Hiroshima 55 years ago and fortunately since then they had never been used in earnest. However, there had been crises. The Procurator Fiscal referred her to the Korean war in 1951, the Soviet missile crises in Cuba in the fifties, the Vietnamese war in 1965 to 1967 and later the Iraq crises where Britain were defending their oil interests with Kuwait but no nuclear weapons had been used. She agreed with all that. She in return asked the Procurator Fiscal if he was suggesting that so far because we had been lucky they should not carry on?

The Procurator Fiscal then turned to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court and read out various parts of that Opinion for her comment. She pointed out that he had extracted and read out only small excerpts but that it wasn’t good enough just to read out small excerpts as they had to be read in the context of the whole. That was also why she had gone through the Opinion in detail the previous day when she gave evidence eventually coming to the question of self defence. She was asked by the Procurator Fiscal, if a country gave up its nuclear weapons, how could it defend itself if its very survival was at risk and if it was attacked by a country with nuclear weapons. Her reply was that conventional weapons had to be used otherwise there would be an anarchic system. She pointed out that nuclear weapons had not kept peace. In recent years there had been many wars and tides of refugees. She was asked where in the Opinion it said the possession of nuclear weapons was illegal. She referred to earlier parts of her evidence on this matter and again confirmed that the Opinion did not say that possession was illegal, but one had to look at the use and deployment of weapons as a whole. She pointed out that the court was not being asked about possession of nuclear weapons; what she was talking about was the active deployment of loaded Trident submarines. The present position was that it was possible to possess them, i.e. keep them in a store, but you could not use them. What was at issue in this trial was the active deployment and the moving them around in submarines which was seen as a threat. It was the threat of nuclear weapons which was illegal and that most other countries regarded the United Kingdom’s possession and deployment as a threat. She was asked, if the Opinion did not deal with possession, how could she draw a conclusion from something which was never said. She replied that you could draw a conclusion from the reasoning and answers given in the Opinion as a whole. At this point the Procurator Fiscal gave up.

Ulla Roder Ms Roder was aged 45 at the date of the trial, single, divorced with two children, a boy and girl aged 18 and 21 respectively. She lives normally in Denmark and is Danish. She has no academic qualifications. She left school at the age of sixteen and worked in a bank for approximately three years. She took various courses at the bank in connection with her work. From an account of her work it seemed very similar to work which might be done by someone in her position in a building society. After her bank job she obtained employment with a building society and there she remained until about 1989. She left the building society because she was becoming aware of certain changes in her working place and society as a whole which meant that she could not carry on working there. It was not so much the politics but the way people were being treated and the cutting down of staff. She had become aware at the time of leaving of breaches of employment agreements. Contracts were being broken, people were being sacked and she was not prepared to accept the breaking of recognised rules. She then had a series of other jobs, working as a lifeguard, and latterly in social work where she started to work with older people, the homeless and the socially excluded. She enjoyed looking after people although she was not unhappy when working in the bank. Since leaving the bank, however, her whole working life had been geared to the humanitarian side.

At this point in her evidence there then followed a short legal argument about which productions the witness would be allowed to speak to. The Procurator Fiscal said that many of the documents she wished to speak to had been prepared by witnesses who were not being called and therefore not subject to cross-examination. He did not, however, object to her referring to the fact that she had read them and as a result formed certain views. He was not, however, prepared to allow anti nuclear propaganda because if the jury read them they "may lose the plot". After argument I upheld his objection.

When Ms Roder’s evidence continued it became clear that the documents which were referred to covered a very wide range of material. Some of it was quite technical and involved such topics as NATO strategy or matters relating to strategies. It emerged that some of the documents had only been read by her while awaiting trial in Cornton Vale. She had, however, been aware of the contents of any such documents before hand but had only the opportunity of reading it in greater detail when she had had the time. She became aware of the contents of many if not all of the documents when she became involved with the peace movement in 1995 and when the French began nuclear testing again in the Pacific in the summer of 1995. She explained that she was interested in the French testing in the Pacific because she had never before been previously aware of the effects of nuclear testing and had never previously participated in peace work. In 1995, however, she was working with the homeless in Copenhagen. They gave her a leaflet. They were looking for people who could protest against French nuclear testing. She had always loved nature. She had always been interested in and liked looking at different cultures and had read about the Pacific area. She was angry when the French started their tests again. At the same time there were some people in her country and indeed around the world with no roof over their heads. She became aware of the connection between the military costs and, to her, the very irrelevant costs of nuclear testing. She was taken through documents which related to underground testing at Mururoa in French Polynesia at the time of President Jacques Chirac. She then spoke about the major atmospheric nuclear testing in 1996 and earlier tests conducted between 1974 and 1981 when 51 underground tests were conducted on the outer rim of the Mururoa atoll. She said that all those documents made her realise that many things had happened which she did not know about. So she became interested in finding out what was happening now. She started a group to publish a newsletter called "Full Stop". It was printed as a small newspaper with information on nuclear testing, fallout, proliferation and the risks of that. She explained the content of the publication and in particular that the aim of her publication was to stop the spiraling of nuclear weapons and a general arms race. She was asked where the editorial staff of her publication obtained their information which went into the newsletter. She explained that the information came from various experts in the area, a previous government correspondent from Washington, a peace researcher, a professor based in Copenhagen University, and a Mr John Avery who at that time was living in and working at a university in Denmark. The publication was to have been produced once every two months because it was very expensive to produce. In fact, however, there seems to have been one issue only but that one issue led to a collection of signatures, a great deal of feedback and an invitation for her to meet officials at the Danish Foreign Ministry. By then she had formed a small pressure group of about 25 to 30 persons working as a group against nuclear testing. When she went to see an official from the Department of Foreign Ministry she went as a member of a group called Women for Peace. At that time the Danish peace movement was very small although it was active in other areas. She was not sure why the Danish Foreign Ministry chose to speak to her but thought that it perhaps might have been that by the time she met the official they had approximately 4,500 signatures on a petition. At that time the Danish population had much the same population as Scotland. It was a comparatively short meeting and at the meeting Ms Roder sought assurances and tried to get the minister to explain why tests were being carried out in the USA, which tests had been worrying her and members of her group a great deal. The answer she received was strange. The minister said that he had heard of the tests. He said the US were carrying out those tests to ensure that the nuclear weapons did not lie in storage rusting so that in the future they could still be safe and reliable. It seemed to be a rust prevention cure. They were not satisfied and felt that they had been made a laughing stock. So she personally made endeavours to speak to other officials at high level in other countries and in particular she managed to obtain a meeting with the Indian Ambassador to Copenhagen sometime in 1998. At that time India were talking about nuclear tests. The meeting with the Indian Ambassador came about because she wrote a letter to one of the Danish newspapers saying that she was worried that India had betrayed the principles of Gandhi. She also said that the Indian government were now on the same dangerous path as other nations but she understood that India felt that it was necessary to do the tests because they had to keep up with developments taking place in the USA and their tests. She had also said in the letter that she was saddened that women and children and populations should go needy because of the costs of those tests, especially in a country like India. A country like India should use money in other ways, i.e. to progress. The Indian Ambassador invited her to lunch. There was a very full conversation, the meeting lasting some three hours, and she was listened to very seriously. The Indian Ambassador agreed with many of her views. Ms Roder asked the ambassador to make her points to the government in India and the ambassador agreed and asked for relevant papers including Ms Roder’s News sheet which were all sent to her. After that meeting she found that she had entered a different world where she had never been before. Thereafter, she wrote to the British Embassy in Copenhagen and received a letter back from a lady called Claire Clauson their press official, which letters were produced. I regret that I am not sure of the Production Numbers and they are not within my copy productions, but I think they should be Productions 1 and 2 for Ms Roder. In that letter she referred to persons known to her in prison in Scotland who had taken part in action against the naval base in the Clyde. She had asked that they be released because they had not committed a crime. In the letter she referred to the ICJ Opinion. By that time she herself had obtained a copy of the full Opinion and had read it. She was asked if she had been satisfied with the reply from the British Embassy. Ms Roder said that she was shocked to know that the British Embassy could not take her colleagues’ release into consideration because it was not their job, and in the same letter she got an answer that the International Court Advisory Opinion was in no way binding. After that letter she continued in her campaign to obtain nuclear disarmament. On 29 April 1999 she wrote to Mr Paul Rasmussan, the Danish Prime Minister. She wrote to him because after a couple of travels abroad she had seen a very frightening situation in Europe in which Denmark had taken an active part because of their membership with NATO. She had been travelling in the Baltic States and she had seen their reaction because of the expansion of NATO. She participated in a big international conference in Warsaw. She could see clearly that it was impossible to get through to the politicians that the expansion of NATO in Europe and what was happening in Europe was causing tension, which could increase. In other words there was a new nuclear race, a new cold war with new frontiers. She did not wish a world of that kind with frontiers being built up again so she and fellow members of her group tried to agitate for other methods and solutions. She told Mr Rasmussan that NATO’s nuclear strategy - "The First Strike Policy Strategy" was illegal. It meant that NATO was threatening other countries with nuclear weapons and they were involving countries like Denmark which in itself did not wish to have nuclear power at all. She told Mr Rasmussan that he was involving Denmark in the use of nuclear weapons and might even get nuclear weapons placed within Danish borders if there was to be a war in time of crisis, She received no reply. She was not particularly disappointed. She had previously written to all groups in the Danish Parliament without getting one letter back. There were no Green Party candidates in Denmark which at the time of the trial had a social democratic government, a kind of coalition with a majority which changed although the government itself seemed to be stable. She spoke of a "Citizens’ summons" which was enclosed in her letter to Mr Rasmussan and explained how the document explained to the Danish government the ways in which they considered NATO was acting illegally. She also confirmed that she was particularly interested in the NATO strategy insofar as it involved Trident nuclear weapons. She then spoke to other documents in the bundle which covered documents produced by countries who had got together to abolish nuclear weapons and to show how it could be done. She named such countries. She also spoke to the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with which she said she was familiar. She was referred to various pages of the document and in particular those parts which related to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. These were all items wh