After Monday's administrations and argument, the trial of 20 activists accused of "conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass" at Ratcliffe power station got underway properly on Tuesday, with the jury being introduced to the prosecution's main elements of the case.

On the newswire: BBC coverage of Ratcliffe Trial | First witness called for the Ratcliffe Trial | Day 2 – Prosecution’s Opening Statement | Ratcliffe Trial Day 2 - Prosecution’s Opening

The prosecution barrister asked the jury to hold four words in their heads: 'trespass', 'conspiracy', 'disruption' and 'lawful activity'. She stated that the facts of the case showed there clearly was an agreement by the defendants to disrupt the lawful activity of Ratcliffe on Soar – namely the generation of electricity by burning coal. She alluded to key documents found including a catering sheet provisioning enough supplies to last a week – which was how long the action would have been lasted if it had gone ahead.

Some summary details of the press release enititled, "Activists shut down UK’s second largest source of CO2 emissions" were also mentioned.

Several times during the thirty minute speech the Proscution suggested that the activists planned this complex and expensive operation because they were unwilling to engage in other forms of communication, such as "giving a talk to the W.I" (Women's Institute) or "a local scout group".   She said it was more "fun" and "exciting" for the defendants to “abseil down a chimney flue" than to "talk to Manchester United fans about the dangers of burning coal".

Moreover, the prosecution asked, "Is it really necessary to close down a power station when there are so many democratic means available?" – referencing a political process that has allowed the first member of the Green Party to become a Member of Parliament. "Was it more fun," she asked, "to plan this action or to vote for Zac Goldsmith?" "Did the defendants do all this, because they didn’t have a Glastonbury ticket?"

At this point – a member of the jury passed a note with three questions to the Judge. The prosecution finished their opening and the Judge left it to the Defence Counsel to answer.

"Zac Goldsmith? Man Utd? Glastonbury? What is the relevance of these?" asked the Jury. The Defence barrister, Ed Rees answered that there was none – before continuing with his planned opening statements.

The Defence referred back to the Prosecution’s “fighting talk". "I won’t go as far to say that the Prosecution’s remarks about the defendants were offensive – but to allege that the defendants don’t engage with the democratic process is not the case."

The defence pointed out that Ratcliffe on Soar was responsible for over 9 million tonnes of CO2 in 2007 and that politicians and energy companies were failing to deal with the issue – that there existed a 'democratic deficit'.

"You’re not going to hear about forlorn looking polar bears floating on dwindling ice sheets. This case, if anything, is about getting real."