My day in Court arrived on Monday 28th October, with a 10:00am start (these courts work very lazy hours). I was on trial for a minor public order offence: breaching a section 14 notice by refusing to move from a banned protest site (Parliament Square) during Extinction Rebellion's April Uprising. This wasn't a trial of just myself however. The CPS had decided to group defendants together, seemingly randomly, for the sake of logistics as there were so many of us to process, and I found myself on trial with three other co-defendants, none of whom I knew, although we would soon be firm friends. I won't give their full names, but Adam, Justin and Charlotte now have my full respect and gratitude for their conduct, dignity and bearing during this experience. I do not intend to reproduce their powerful testimony in this blog, merely my own. If they choose to do so (and I will send them a link to this) then they can add their own story if they wish.
I was lucky enough to have plenty of supporters in Court, which certainly helped me emotionally. We were all self-representing, apart from Charlotte, who had a barrister, and was challenging the fact that she was warned about the section 14 notice prior to arrest. The rest of us accepted the facts of our arrest, but were challenging the validity of the section 14 notice, and regardless of this, that we were entitled to act as we did through necessity by preventing a greater harm.
The first morning was taken up by evidence from the Prosecution, and acting Chief Inspector Galvin (who issued the section 14 notice) plus two of our arresting officers gave evidence. CI Galvin explained that he considered the disruption caused by our protest was so severe that he was justified in issuing the section 14 notice, banning our protest in Parliament Square, and forcing us to leave or to move to a designated protest area in Marble Arch. We cross examined him about the nature of our protest (Peaceful, friendly, carnival-like, no violence or damage), and I asked him about the frequency of events in London that required road closures, such as football matches, marches, public events etc (the actual list was long!). He agreed that these were numerous and that London coped with them, but that a two week closure was of a different level to that of a few hours, and that he could plan for them. I argued that Londoners were used to road closures, and easily adapted by taking the tube or finding a different route. I didn't have much to ask my arresting officer other than get her to agree that we were peaceful and non-violent, but did question why the bodycam footage of my arrest was not available.
At this point, I will point you to the statement I made at interview whilst in custody. We were advised to make a 'no comment' interview, but I wanted to 'own' my action and to take full responsibility for it, so I was happy to answer questions why I took the action that I did. Here is my interview verbatim:
The interviewing officer reads out the first paragraph of the arresting officers statement that explains the section 14 POA that was
implemented. It then describes Mr Lloyd and what he was doing..
Q: Do remember this?
A: I do
Q: Would you like to tell me a little bit about that, explain what happened?
A: What is stated there is probably factually correct
PC HAQUE then read sentence two of paragraph two where it describes where Mr Lloyd was stood and that section 14 was
explained and that Mr Lloyd had stated that he didn't understand.
Q: Is that right?
A: Correct
Q: What did she say?
A: She just said there was a section 14 notice in effect
Q: What else did she say to you?
A: I cant remember
Q: After the officer explained to you, did you understand that you needed to leave?
A: She asked me to leave, yes
Sentence five is then read out whereby the officer asks again for Mr Lloyd to leave but he does not respond and when asked why he
was refusing to leave, he stated he does not have to tell the officer anything
Q: Is that right?
A: That's correct
From the statement.... Mr Lloyd was told he could go to Marble Arch but he stated that he had been there earlier and wants to
protest at this location.
Q: Is that right?
A: That's correct
Mr Lloyd then stated that it wasn't right as he had not been to Marble Arch
From the statement.....I then explained that if he refuses to leave he would be arrested for S14 POA and S137 obstruction of the highways act 1980.
Q: Is that right, did she explain that to you?
A: Yes
Q: Did you understand what she said?
A: I did
Following this, I asked if there is anything i can do, but he again did not say anything to that
Q: Is that right?
A: Correct
Q: Why didn't you say anything?
A: Nothing to say
Q: What was your purpose for being there?
A: We were protesting about the governments lack of action to take any action against the impending climate emergency
Q: Did you feel your actions were lawful after you were told....?
A: I thought it was fully justified yes, i think sometimes if laws are unjust you have to protest against them. In the past, i think we are
following in the footsteps of people who protested against slavery was legal, anyone that protested against slavery was potentially
breaking the law and was liable to be arrested. Women weren't allowed to have the vote and anybody protesting for women to have
the vote was breaking the law and was liable to be arrested and i think history has shown that those actions were correct and just
and moral and i believe mine is in the same category.
Q: Do you accept that you broke the law?
A: Well, i accept that i was warned that i was breaking the law and i think that I was doing so from a moral and just stand point.
Q: But you accept that the law and the time, that the officer said you were breaking the law at that particular time?
A: Indeed and i'm fully prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.
At 1233 hours on the 19th April 2019, he was told that he is under arrest for the breach of s14 POA and s137 the highways act. He
refused to move willingly therefore officers from other serials assisted in moving him from the crowd.
Q: Is that right?
A: That's correct
Q: How many officers had to remove you:
A: I can't remember how many it was, i am quite big so i imagine it was a few
Q: How tall are you?
A: 6' 3"
He was not cautioned at the time as it was not practicable at the time due to the situation involving public. He was placed in
handcuffs in rear stack. Once we arrived to Walworth custody waiting to be booked in, i cautioned Gary Lloyd to which he made no reply
Q: Is that correct
A: That's right
PC Haque then reads out the description of Mr Lloyd as written by the arresting officer.
Q: Do you feel you were given sufficient time to comply with the conditions?
A: Yes i was. As i said we are fully prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. Everybody is prepared to be arrested and to
face the consequences, there's no problem with that.
Q: Given that the offence of highway obstruction is only committed in the absence of lawful authority or excuse, do you believe you
had any such authority or excuse for blocking the highway?
A: I do believe we had an excuse for blocking the highway yes
Q: Do you believe that was lawful authority do you or you believe that was an excuse ?
A; I think we are morally justified in doing so
Q:Was it always your intention today to block the highway or were your actions done on the ‘spur of the moment’?
A: It was always my intention
Q: So, had you not been arrested, you have still stayed there?
A: Yes, as many of us did and are still doing now
Q: Do you believe that by committing the offence of breaching section 14 POA and also Wilful obstruction of the Highway you were
in some way preventing a greater crime being committed either today or in the future, if so what crime?
A: Yes i do
Q: And what crime is it that you are preventing?
A: I believe the inaction of the government to reduce carbon emissions and prevent climate catastrophe is going to be, is going to
affect all of our lives if action isn't taken within the next 11 years we stand to face irreversible climate change which is going to cause
food shortages, civil disobedience, war, and the possible breakdown in our society and the government have shown themselves
incapable of doing anything about it. I think our actions this week have seized the agenda on the front page, got us talking about it
on the television and newspapers and time will show that we are morally justified doing what we are doing
Q: What did you hope to achieve by doing this, i think you've answered that question.....
A: yes we hope to educate people about the crisis and we hope to seize the agenda, we hope to get publicity and precipitate some change.
What I particularly enjoyed about this interview, is that the prosecuting barrister had to read it all out to the court. I felt that it was a more powerful thing to do than a simple 'no comment' interview, and nothing in it weakened the case that I was making. I wasn't trying to get off on a technicality; I was arguing from a moral and science-based stand point.
Eventually it came to the time when we were able to give evidence ourselves. My fellow defendants gave powerful and moving testimony, asking the judge to give weight to the moral and scientific justification of our cause. My own testimony was part prepared and part 'off the cuff, from the heart', and I cannot recall all of it verbatim, but here is the main part of it,should you have the patience to read it all:
Opening Statement to The Judge
My name is Gary Lloyd. I am 54 years old. I am married to Jen, and I have two grown up Sons; Peter & Rhys. I have worked as a rural postman in a Bedfordshire Village for the last eight years, but before that I worked for a quarter of a century as a Quantity Surveyor in the construction industry before the financial crash of 2008 led to redundancy and a change of career. Volunteering and helping others in my local community has always been important to me. I have served as a Parish Councillor, stood for election for my Borough Council on several occasions, acted as co-ordinator for my local speedwatch group, visit an elderly gentlemen in my former village on a weekly basis for companionship, and regularly lobby my local MP and councillor on issues that concern me.
I am not a lawyer, I have chosen not to be legally represented, and I may not be able to explain my defence in technical terms. But what I would like to emphasise is this. I decided to take action not because of my political beliefs or opinions. I decided to take action because of what leading scientists are telling us about the extreme urgency of the threat from climate change, and the likelihood that without an urgent change of course, humanity will have passed the point of no return in just 11 years. The consequences are likely to be devastating in ways that I will outline shortly.
In those circumstances, it is not just that I felt I was bound to take action. I believe that to stand by and do nothing, while our common home is on fire, would be profoundly and morally wrong. When the house is on fire the normal rules don’t apply: it’s not a crime to break a window to save those inside. As Martin Luther King said in his letter from a Birmingham jail, ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’, and the injustice being wrought on future generations by our own is one of the greatest in human history. Martin Luther King also reminded us in that letter that everything the Nazis did in Germany was legal, as was the slavery in the cotton fields and sugar cane plantations, the persecution of homosexuals and the use of child labour.
My defence is based on long-established principles of common law that it is not a crime to take reasonable and proportionate action to prevent the occurrence of a far greater harm.
It is reasonable to believe that death and serious injury is going to occur from the climate emergency, and on an unprecedented scale, because that is what the scientists are telling us. It would be unreasonable to ignore its warnings, and indeed, in the intitial details provided by the CPS, they have stated that they do not intend to contest the science of the climate emergency. The unprecedented scale of death is at the very least in terms of millions of human beings, with many respected scientists, including Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Potsdam Institute) and Prof James Lovelock, warning that climate breakdown would reduce the Earth’s human carrying capacity to around 1 billion. That could mean the death of over 6 billion people from its current population levels. A literal genocide of unprecedented proportions. I then talked briefly about the highlights of what respected reports tell us are the consequences of carrying on as we are – rising sea levels, melting of the polar ice caps and permafrost, leading to unstoppable feedback loops as trapped methane is released; flooding to low lying land and major coastal cities; areas of the earth no longer able to produce food and water sufficient for human population, leading to mass migration, civil conflict, war, and innumerable deaths. I argued that how could any sane and rational person stand aside and do nothing faced with such an appalling prospect.
Greta Thunberg wrote an article in Forbes magazine in September 2019. She wrote:
“The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics. And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy right now is Physics. And we cannot make ‘deals’ with Physics. Wherever I go I seem to be surrounded by fairy tales. Bedtime stories that soothe us, how we are going to fix everything. It’s time to face the facts, the science. And the science doesn’t mainly speak of ‘great opportunities to create the society we always wanted. It tells of unspoken human sufferings, which will get worse and worse the longer we delay action – unless we start to act now. This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.”
I then spoke from the heart about the imminence argument – how our action now was intended to force Government to accept our three simple demands – to tell the truth, to take action to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025; and to institute citizen’s assemblies to enact this. I spoke of the people who are dying today, and every day, in sub-saharan Africa and elsewhere, who were unlucky enough by an accident of birth to be born in a country so affected by climate breakdown that not enough food could be grown and not enough water was available. These people would either starve or be forced to migrate across deserts, risking death, slavery, or to fall into the hands of people smugglers whilst trying to reach perceived safety. The scale of the deaths and suffering of the people that we know about is appalling and scarcely believable; but these are only a fraction of the real deaths. I tried to illustrate that although the threat of climate breakdown did not seem imminent to us in the UK, where we can still buy all the food we could require; it was very real and very imminent elsewhere. I also asked the court to accept that the life of a sub-saharan African was of equal value to that of any of us. I tried to demonstrate that our actions in blocking roads in Parliament Square did have the power to change Government Policy, and that therefore we were justified in taking that action. I quoted the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, John McDonnell, who had written a statement in support of XR defendants. He said:
“ 1. My name is John McDonnell. I am the Labour Member of Parliament (MP) for Hayes and Harlington. I have been an MP since 1 May 1997. I have been Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer since 13 September 2015.
2. I am providing this witness statement to comment on, firstly, the vital role of peaceful public assemblies in our parliamentary democracy, and, secondly, the impact that the 'Extinction Rebellion' demonstrations in April 2019 had on Labour Party policy and the decision to hold a climate emergency debate on 1 May 2019.
3. Peaceful public assemblies can be an excellent method of disseminating information about an issue of concern or a particular cause to MPs, the media and members of the public.
4. In this way people can influence MPs between elections as part of an ongoing process of democratic engagement. It is a method of engaging with MPs that is particularly accessible to those who may not be able to participate as effectively in traditional forms of lobbying.
5. This stands in the long tradition of freedom of speech and assembly in our country and is valued by many MPs, who view it as a form of grassroots, informal democracy that complements the formal processes of Parliament.
6. As an MP, I am always keen to gain a range of views from different perspectives. I find peaceful public assemblies invaluable, therefore, in providing me with the opportunity to hear the views of a section of society that are often not heard through more formal channels.
7. Before April 2019, we already had, in the Shadow Treasury team, a shadow minister (Clive Lewis) with responsibility for looking at climate change and the role of the Treasury and tackling it. The Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy team, led by Rebeca Long Bailey, also had experts looking at energy and renewables. However, the Labour Party's policy programme developed substantially and quickly following the 'Extinction Rebellion' demonstrations that took place at Waterloo Bridge, Oxford Circus, Parliament Square and Marble Arch from 15 to 26 April 2019.
8. I, like many others, was inspired by the action taken by Extinction Rebellion activists in April 2019 ('the April demonstrations'). The activists successfully raised the profile of the climate threat and focused the minds of us all on the radical action that is needed.
9. Following the April 2019 demonstrations, we (the Labour Party) announced our plan to use an Opposition day debate ('Opposition days' are days allocated in the House of Commons in each Parliamentary session for the discussion of subjects chosen by the Opposition) to seek to persuade the House of Commons to pass a motion declaring an
' environment and climate emergency' . This would make the UK Parliament the first in the world to do so, with the intention to trigger a wave of action from governments and parliaments around the world.
10. On 28 April 2019, the Welsh Labour government declared a 'climate emergency.'
11. On 30 April 2019, Sue Hayman, the Shadow Environment Secretary, and I met with Extinction Rebellion activists Savannah Lovelock, Sarah Lunnon and Skeen Rathor. On behalf of the Labour Party, we committed to engaging with Extinction Rebellion and its three demands (1. 'Tell the truth - Government must tell thetruth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change', 2. 'Act Now - Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025', and 3. 'Beyond Politics - Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens' Assembly on climate and ecological justice').
12. We also asked the activists to present their case on the climate and ecological emergency to the Shadow Cabinet, and committed the Shadow Environment Committee and Shadow Treasury team to hearing presentations from them.
13. On 1 May 2019, the Labour Party's motion declaring an "environment and climate emergency following the finding of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that to avoid a more than 1.5 degrees C rise in global warming, global emissions would need to fall by around 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050..." was passed by the House of Commons without division.
14. Soon after, on 27 June 2019, the government announced that the UK will be required to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.”
15. The actions of the Extinction Rebellion activists who took part in the April 2019 demonstrations were vital in informing us - MPs in general and the Labour Party in particular - about the extent of the climate crisis, and the urgency with which we, as a society, must act. Their methods ensured that their message could not be ignored.
16. I can confirm that the April demonstrations were a direct cause of the decision to hold
- and the timing of - the climate emergency debate held on 1 May 2019, which resulted in the House of Commons declaring an 'environment and climate emergency.'
This statement clearly demonstrated that the actions of XR activists taking peaceful and non-violent direct action did have an immediate and constructive effect on Government policy.
I talked of how I had spent a lifetime campaigning for environmental issues by letter writing, lobbying, standing for political office, serving as a parish Councillor, and attending numerous demonstrations and marches; but none of these had had any meaningful effect. I had taken on board personal changes to reduce my carbon footprint, such as changes to my diet, and refraining from flying or buying any ‘fast fashion’ or new clothes. But none of these had any significant impact compared to what Government could do. I had become inspired by Extinction Rebellion’s tactics, and saw what a powerful weapon peaceful civil disobedience could be, especially coupled with a willingness of enough people to face arrest and overwhelm the justice system. I believe that with the benefit of hindsight, XR and the youth school climate strike movement has achieved more in the six months following April’s rebellion than I had managed in a lifetime of campaigning. I made the point that even if the court convicted me of this offence, then my sacrifice would have been worth it and I would have no regrets. The ends would justify the means, and I would willingly accept the sacrifice of my conviction, even though I still sincerely believed in my innocence due to the justifications that I had outlined. I invited the Judge to be part of making a difference and start to turn the tide against the fatal policy of business as usual by acquitting us.
It should be noted that the Judge offered us assistance as self-reppers by referring us to what he considered to be relevant case law, particularly Zeigler and James. My colleagues sought to use this knowledge by arguing that whilst the Judge had to weigh our right to protest against the Public's right to go about their lawful business, the fact that we were trying to force the Government to change policy and avert the collapse of civilisation and a genocide of unimaginable proportions must surely weigh heavier on our side!
Once we had all given evidence, the Judge adjourned for the day so that he could consider his verdict, but did offer us the opportunity to make a closing statement in the morning once we had slept on it and had the chance to consider anything else that we might want to add. I did, and made the following statement early the next day, attempting to clarify the legal justification for our actions:
Closing Statement to The Judge
"You have heard evidence yesterday from the Police attempting to justify the closing down of our peaceful protest in Parliament Square, and from ourselves, justifying the moral and conscience-compelling reasons why we were protesting. You will not care about our moral case, and the prosecution is not contesting any of the overwhelming scientific evidence that that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that our current course is heading for climate breakdown; the disappearance of low-lying land and coastal cities; a reduction in the areas of the earth that can provide food and water; the collapse of civilisation; and billions of human deaths, not to mention untold other species.
You do not care about any of this. All you are concerned with is whether by the cold and dispassionate letter of the law, a crime has been committed. In this case, a minor public order offence with a maximum penalty of £1,000 fine. So let us look at the cold hard law.
1) Were the Police justified in issuing a section 14 notice and closing down ALL XR sites apart from Marble Arch over a bank holiday weekend?
2) Were we warned? Well, yes, we were; apart from one defendant who disputes that.
3) Did we have a lawful right to protest? Yes, we did, under the European Convention of Human Rights
4) Did the public have the right to go about their daily business? Yes, they did; and we have argued that they could do so, being able to pass through Parliament Square by bicycle or on foot, or on the underground. We have argued that the public were fully aware of our protest and where we were, and have presented evidence that road closures are common occurrences in London that the populace are used to adapting to.
You must weigh our right to protest with the right of Londoners not to be disrupted. On the Public’s side of the scales of justice is some minor inconvenience, where no-one died, to ‘carry on as usual’. On our side of the scales of justice is the consequence of that ‘business as usual’ – the literal collapse of civilisation and billions of deaths. I would respectfully suggest that that weight is slightly heavier on the scales of justice, both morally and legally.
You may argue that us sitting in the road is not an act of preventing an imminent threat to life, and indeed it is hard to see that the threat is real whilst we can buy asparagus from Peru at our local Waitrose in October. But people are dying from the effects of the climate catastrophe NOW. Today. In countries close to the equator people are dying from starvation and thirst, and those that are still strong enough are trying to migrate to areas where they can survive. They are literally walking across the Sahara Desert to get to the Mediterranean coast where they must then run the gauntlet of slave traders and people smugglers in a desperate effort to reach an area of perceived safety.
So how can sitting down in road make a difference? Well, one person can’t, but enough of us together prepared to cause disruption and prepared to face arrest can and does reach Government, as has been affirmed by John McDonnell’s statement that we heard yesterday, and directly led to Parliament’s declaration of a climate emergency and commitment to nett zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Our tactic of non-violent civil disobedience is a legitimate part of our democracy and has a long and honourable history. Today we revere Ghandi; the suffragettes and the abolitionists, and we aspire to that tradition.
In weighing your judgement, you now have the opportunity to send a message to Government even more powerful than our original protest. I urge you to acquit us, for the sake of humanity, and for generations to come. Thank you."
The judge then retired to complete his deliberations before delivering his verdict.
Which I will reveal, along with his reasoning, tomorrow: