14 Greenpeace activists from the UK, Ireland, Germany & the US are currently
before Southampton Magistrates Court for aggravated trepass and four with
criminal damage. The peaceful demonstration that culminated in the action at
Marchwood Military Base on the 4th February 2003 was part of a series of
actions that Greenpeace organised in response to the build up for war in
Iraq. Actions at the base before the 4th February demo included boarding a
military supply ship and the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior blockaded
Marchwood Port. The case against the captain of the Rainbow Warrior has still to come to court.

Lawyers acting for Greenpeace claim the defendants have the right to
demonstrate under the infamous Human Rights Act. They also claim that the
charge of aggravated trepass (which differs from normal trepass in that the
defendants are claimed to have prevented others (military personel) from
going about their lawful business), does not apply since they were preventing
the military form engaging in an illegal war. Therefore, the defendants
believe they were obliged to take action to prevent an illegal war from
taking place, hence saving lives both British and Iraqi.

It is this defence that has created the controversy in this case. The defence
team has asked for disclosure of the Attorney General's advice that he
delivered to the cabinet in the run up to the war, in order to prove under British law that the war was illegal. But Blair has once again been successful in preventing this from being disclosed. This one piece of evidence was crucial in the decision to dismiss the case against GCHQ whistleblower Katherine Gun. It now seems unlikely that the judge will take this into account in the case.

The decision was handed out today, with all the activists being found guilty of all charges and sentenced to 2 years conditional discharge and some with £50 fines. Those found guilty of criminal damage were ordered to pay the costs of repairing the fences and damage to the paintwork of the tanks.

Interestingly the judge concluded that the defendants defense of acting to prevent the occurence of in their view an illegal war did not stand up since the damage to the tanks was not sufficent to prevent them from being used in the upcoming war. The judge said that the action had more to do with publising the anti-war demo than it had to do with stopping the war. This raises the question that if more serious damage had been inflicted, and they were not able to be deployed in Iraq would the defendants actions have been more justified. The judge concluded that the defendants must have known that their action, however justified, would not have been sufficent to stop the war.

The activists plan to appeal the convictions and believe they have solid ground for this.

Meet the activists:  http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/
contentlookup.cfm?ucidparam=20040308155509&MenuPoint=D-J

For more details:
 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk