On Wednesday 5th January, the defendants in the Ratcliffe Trial were sentenced. The judge spoke highly of the defendants describing them as ""honest, sincere, conscientious, intelligent, committed, dedicated, caring"." Five were given community orders ranging from 18 to 90 hours to be carried out within 12 months. The remaining thirteen all received conditional discharges ranging from 18 months to 2 years. Most had no order for cost awarded against them.  However, two of the defendants had to pay £1,000 and £500. A further 2 defendants had their sentencing deferred until January 18th.

A second trial begins on Monday 10th January, this time focusing on the police's pre-emptive arrest.

On the newswire: Ratcliffe Crown Court Trial 'Collected Report' PDF |  Final statement from the Ratcliffe defendants | Ratcliffe Trial Day 16 – Return for Sentencing

Previous features: Mass Arrest of 114 Climate Activists in Raid | Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins | Ratcliffe Trial: Prosecution Opens | Ratcliffe Trial: Week 2 | Guilty verdict in Ratcliffe trial

At the conclusion of the trial on the 14th December 2010, all 20 defendants were found guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass.

They were arrested in April 2009 during the biggest pre-emptive arrest in UK history. The 114 people were detained at Iona School, Sneinton, where they were involved in planning an operation to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station for a week. The facts were not disputed.  Giving evidence, this was clearly there intention and that they were equipped to do it.  The defence of necessity was employed in that they were acting to prevent a greater harm; death and serious injury to others as a direct consequence of climate changes bought about by the burning of fossil fuels, most notably coal.

Since being found guilty, His Honour Judge Teare had deferred sentencing until today awaiting reports. Two defendants have been further deferred until January 18th 2011.

It is reported that this trial and police costs add up to £700,000.

Miss Gerry for the prosecution said that a number of defendants did have previous convictions for offences relating to social and environmental matters. None relating to violent or acquisitive crime. She asked the Judge to award £5,000 costs against each defendant.  When asked, the prosecution said that the actual prosecution costs against each defendant were £20,000.

In mitigation, Mr Ed Rees for the defences seeks to make some general points pertaining to all the defendants:

• If the action had in fact been carried out, it would have been peaceful and safe in character.
• ;There is no suggestion of violence or disorder on any of the defendant part.
• There would have been unlikely to have been any damage.
• The planned event never took place.
• The motivation of those involved being of a caring and concerned character. He cites a Court of Appeal authority for this to be taken into account. Jones & Others R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 2942 (20 September 2006)

Mr Rees went on that all the defendants practice what they preach.  All had engaged in the democratic and political process and not just in direct action and that this should further mitigate any sentencing. All the defendants have so many character and glowing personal testimonials by professions and peers and had many social concerns.

As to costs, Mr Rees says that the trial length was greatly reduced by defendants admissions.  Hence only requiring one prosecution witness. He thus invites the court to take account of what is reasonable and just.

Some defendants were in receipt of a variety of benefits and disability / incapacity benefits and thus the prosecution asking for £5,000 would thus be unreasonable and unjust. Further, ome prosecution work and costs would be common to the next trial to be heard and thus this should also be taken into account.

All three barristers representing the defence then gave individual mitigations for each of their clients.

Returning after lunch the Judge Jonathan Teare makes a brief summary of the facts of the case. He agrees he is thwarted in his wish to make the defendants pay a larger proportion of the costs of the case because of their limited means. Further, with respect to those with previous convictions, he had been minded to give suspended prison sentences.  However, after a little discussion, it turns out that as the maximum penalty of three months imprisonment, a £2,500 fine, or both. That this short sentence cannot be suspended.

Thus, dealing with sentencing, five were given community orders [unpaid work] ranging from 18 to 90 hours to be carried out within 12 months.

The remaining thirteen all received conditional discharges ranging from 18 months to 2 years. Most had no order for cost awarded against them.  However, two of the defendants had to pay £1000 and £500.

The Judge added as he sentenced them: I have read a great deal about all of you since the trial concluded. There is not one of you who cannot provide glowing references from peers or professionals. And, if I may select, some of the adjectives that recur throughout they are these: honest, sincere, conscientious, intelligent, committed, dedicated and caring. You are all decent men and women with a genuine concern for others, and in particular for the survival of planet Earth in something resembling its present form. I have no doubt that each of you acted with the highest possible motives. And that is an extremely important consideration.

Judge Teare went on and said the protest had been well-considered and well-prepared. You had come from every corner of the country. Transport, food, clothing, climbing and safety equipment had been organised, costing several thousand pounds. Mobile phones, walkie-talkies, gas detectors, hard helmets, sleeping bags and sanitary facilities had all been provided. You had been organised into teams and briefed on your actions.

But while accepting the protest had been intended as a legitimate action by people who genuinely believed in their cause, the Judge said that their motives could not absolve them from punishment.

In concluding, the Judge said that never before had he dealt with so many defendant who were polite, committed and punctual during proceedings.

Two defendants have had sentencing deferred until January 18th 2011.