For immediate release: Friday, 15 December

CHANGE OF LEGAL GOALPOSTS PRODUCES MIXED VERDICTS ON TOY DRONE FLYING ACTION AT HEATHROW AIRPORT

• Valerie Brown found not guilty for the third time this year
• Roger Hallam and Dr Larch Maxey found guilty, by a split jury, of conspiring to close Heathrow Airport by flying toy drones in prohibited zone
• Verdict follows an extraordinary and unprecedented last minute change of the goalposts by judge and prosecutor, which reverses the applicable legal test.

               Dr Larch Maxey                    Valerie Brown                      Roger Hallam

Today, a jury at Isleworth Crown Court in London, acquitted Valerie Brown, a former London Mayoral candidate whilst simultaneously convicting fellow campaigners Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Dr Larch Maxey, academic and advocate for citizens assemblies. All three had been charged with conspiracy to cause public nuisance for flying toy drones at Heathrow Airport in the prohibited zone in September 2019.

In an extraordinary and unprecedented move, the judge, Judge Martin Edmunds KC, Recorder of Kensington and Chelsea, directly reversed the “route to verdict” after Hallam and Maxey, who did not have legal representation, had given their closing speeches (but before Brown’s barrister, Michael Goold had closed on her behalf).

Prior to Hallam and Maxey giving evidence and making their speeches, Judge Edmunds had ruled the prosecution could prove their case by showing that the defendants had intended to shut down Heathrow, but that their intention was ‘impossible’ to fulfil. This language reflected the wording of the legislation on conspiracy (see ‘Notes to Editors’ below). Hallam and Maxey made their speeches on the basis of the judge’s ruling the prosecution could prove their case if they showed that the defendants “had agreed to carry out specific drone flying in the belief that so doing would compel the authorities to close the airport even though, in fact, it would have been impossible to achieve the closure of the airport by the specific method that they had agreed to adopt.”

Judge’s ‘route to verdict’ before closing statements from Hallam and Maxey

In order to defend themselves against this route to verdict, Hallam and Maxey argued that it wasn’t impossible for the airport to shut down in response to the flying of toy drones at head height well away from the flight paths. Anything was possible. It was just very unlikely. The prosecution’s own witnesses, including Paul Farmer, the Airport Operations Manager whose final decision it was, had confirmed the action posed no risk to the public and would not in fact cause any disruption to air traffic.

After Hallam and Maxey’s speeches were concluded, the prosecutor, James Curtis KC, claimed there had been a misunderstanding over the prosecution case. For reasons that were unclear, this led the judge to reverse his ruling on the law. Instead of the prosecution needing to prove impossibility, they needed to prove only that it was ‘possible’ that flying toy drones in the prohibited area would cause Heathrow to shut down - dramatically widening the goalposts for the prosecution. The consequence of this reversal was that Hallam and Maxey had both been induced to present their submissions in a way which supported the prosecution case.

Judge’s route to verdict after closing statements from Hallam and Maxey

The barrister representing Brown, Michael Goold, was able to make his submissions on the basis of this revised route to verdict and Ms Brown was subsequently acquitted.

Hallam and Maxey are now due to be sentenced on16th February. The judge said that all options were open. They have launched a crowdfunder to help fund their appeal.

Tim Crosland, Director of the climate justice charity, Plan B, which supports climate and land defenders facing prosecution, said:

“This is the first time I have witnessed a judge changing the legal goalposts after the defendants have given both their evidence and closing speeches. It is the first time I have ever heard of anything like this taking place. It is obviously a gross violation of natural justice and the right to a fair trial. It comes amid mounting evidence that, following a pattern of jury acquittals, some judges are manipulating the court process to engineer guilty verdicts for those exposing the government’s climate lies and hypocrisy.”

Valerie Brown, who was today acquitted by a jury for the third time this year, said:

“My father worked with the wife of Marcus Garvey, the famous pan Africanist, and all my life I have worked with Africa in my heart and soul. The proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport, along with other such carbon bombs being advanced by the British government, would be a death sentence for so many millions of my global family. I could not have looked at myself in the mirror if I did not take action. Although I’m grateful to be acquitted, I don’t understand why I’m not guilty and Roger and Larch are guilty when we were part of the same action. My heart is heavy, but we will have a better day. It doesn’t feel like a coincidence that the legal goalposts were changed after their closing speeches but before mine.”

For further info: 07795 316164; info@planb.earth

Notes for editors

1. The Criminal Law Act 1977 section 1 set the statutory test for conspiracy as follows:

“(1)Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either—

(a)will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b)would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible …”

The original route to verdict reflected this wording. The changed route to verdict directly contradicts this wording.

2. For a further account of a judge appearing to manipulate the trial process to secure a guilty verdict, see, The Climate Trials (The Ecologist). See also defendourjuries.org.
3. The judge’s ruling, which led to the changed route to verdict, is available on request.