22nd May 2007

Jury decides - not-guilty: intention to damage US bombers destined for Iraq was lawful

This afternoon, Tuesday 22 May, at Bristol Crown Court, the trial of two Oxford peace activists Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch (known as the 'B52 Two') concluded with the jury returning a unanimous verdict of not-guilty- in less than three hours. The two were charged with conspiring to cause criminal damage at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on 18 March 2003 when they tried to safely disable US B52 bombers to prevent them from bombing Iraq[1]. The court heard the two men acted to prevent damage to life and property in Iraq, and war crimes by the aggressors [2].

The trial started on Monday 14 May 2007. This is the second trial for the alleged offence; the first in October 2006 ended in a hung jury, after 12 hours of deliberation spread over three days. The two accused were facing up to ten years in jail. There are two other similar cases awaiting re-trial, due to hung juries, at Bristol crown court.

The two activists maintain that war crimes were committed in the bombing as cluster bombs, which spread unexploded bomblets that kill and maim civilians (like mines) were used, as were 'bunker busting' bombs tipped with depleted uranium that fragments, spreading radioactive toxins which are harmful to civilians.

During the trial the prosecution accepted that even delaying the bombers would have prevented civilian casualties, as it would have allowed those fleeing cities more time to escape. In his hour and a half summing up today, Justice Crowther explained the legal tests that must be met for the prosecution to succeed, he reiterated the facts and summarised the evidence. A document 'steps to verdict' had been provided to assist the jury.

Toby Olditch said "We're overjoyed, and thankful for the good sense of the jurors, for the wonderful support we've received, and for the commitment and expertise of our legal representatives. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people have still suffered as a result of the Government's actions. It shouldn't have come to the point that people had to take direct action to try to check the abuse of executive power."

Phil Pritchard "I am delighted that the jury have returned a unanimous not-guilty verdict. Our action in trying to prevent illegal attacks on the people of Iraq in 2003 is vindicated. I hope war of this kind never happens again."

ENDS

14th May 2007

Press briefing: second trial of Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch

Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch, two Oxford peace activists (known at the 'B52 Two'), will stand trial on Monday 14 May 2007 at Bristol Crown Court. They are accused of conspiring to cause criminal damage at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on 18 March 2003 when they tried to prevent B52 bombers from bombing Iraq. If convicted the two could face a possible ten year sentence.

This is the second trial for the alleged offence; the first in October 2006 ended in a hung jury. The trial is expected to last no more than ten days; the previous trial took 8 days. There are two other similar cases awaiting re-trial at Bristol crown court, which also had hung juries.

Media contact at court and before: 07910 329 211; website (incl. blog): www.b52two.org
[Publication date: Wednesday 9 May 2007]

About the defendants
Philip Pritchard is 36 years old, and a self employed carpenter and father. Toby Olditch is 38 years old, and a self employed builder. They both live in Oxford.

Events leading to retrial
March 2003: On 18 March Toby Olditch and Phil Pritchard are arrested inside RAF Fairford approaching USAF B52 bombers, which they intended to prevent from bombing Iraq. They were remanded to Gloucester Prison. The bombing of Iraq starts on 20 March 2003.

June 2003: The two activists are released on bail after being held on remand for 3 months.

April 2004: In a pre-trial hearing, Judge Grigson at Bristol Crown Court rules that there are legal defences which are admissible, i.e. acting to prevent a crime, but that a Crime of Aggression, by the British Government may is not a crime in domestic law. His decision is appealed to the High Court.

June 2004: The Court of Appeal upholds Judge Grigson's decision but indicate that the matter should be certified for the House of Lords.

January 2006: House of Lords rules that the accused can't claim in court that they acted to prevent the crime of aggression by the British Government when it attacked Iraq.

October 2006: First trial, at Bristol Crown court, starts on 2 October and ends in hung jury on 11 October.

The facts – the action
Prior to their action at RAF Fairford, Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard petitioned those in authority and demonstrated against the war on Iraq. On the night of 18 March 2003, they were detained inside the perimeter fence approaching a B52 bomber. They carried with them tools to damage the planes, nuts and bolts to jam the aircrafts engines, pictures of ordinary Iraqi civilians and paint symbolizing blood and oil. They also carried warning signs for attaching to any damaged planes which would help alert aircrew to their action.

The two men acted nonviolently in a way which would not result in harm to anyone, including the military personnel at Fairford. They intended to stay with the planes and tell the operators what they'd done; and in consequence the most meticulous examination, repair and checking processes would have been carried out on the planes. They had hoped to inflict sufficient damage to the aircraft to prevent the bombing.

The trial process
The defendants are represented in court by barrister Edward Rees, Q.C. from Doughty Street Chambers, London. Their solicitor is Mike Schwarz of Bindmans & Partners, London. The trial process is:

1. Jury selection: this may take the whole day if the jury membership is disputed.
2. The prosecution opens the proceedings.
3. Prosecution present the case for conviction of the alleged offences, including exhibits, and their witnesses. The defence barristers can cross examine the witnesses.
4. Each of the defendants present their defence through examination by their barrister; witnesses and expert witnesses may be called and questioned by the defence; the prosecution cross examine the defendants and their witnesses.
5. The prosecution, and the defendants barristers sum up. At the first trial, it took five days to reach this point.
6. The judge sums up the case, and the jury is sent to consider their verdict. At the first trial, the jury deliberated for three days before deciding they couldn't reach a verdict.
7. The jury present their verdict. If the jury return a guilty verdict then the judge may decide on sentencing immediately – although unlikely, or they may defer sentencing pending reports, etc to a later hearing. The first trial took a total of 8 days.

Legal defence
The two activists were open about their intention to disable the bombers. They do not contest that they intended to do damage to the bombers. The jury must consider whether the prosecution have proved that the intended action of the accused was not justified in law.

The justification offered by the activists is: firstly, they were acting to protect property; and secondly, the use of force is allowed in law to prevent a crime. The first of these defences is derived from Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which states that:

"A person charged... shall be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse if he damaged or threatened to damage the property in question in order to protect property belonging to himself or another... and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed
(i) that the property... was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held. "

The two activists say that they had a lawful excuse in seeking to protect property in Iraq; there was an immediate need to act, and in the circumstances it was reasonable. They maintain what that they agreed to do was only such damage as was necessary to prevent the crime they believed was about to be committed – no more; and that such damage as they agreed to commit was reasonable (objectively reasonable), in the light of the circumstances they believed them to be.

The second defence is found in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 : “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime”. Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch say they acted to prevent a war crime, and in the circumstances it was reasonable. Over time the international community has established rules of war, and one of these is to protect the lives and property of civilians. As the judge said in the first trial, the jury should regard as a war crime ‘the use, to achieve a military purpose, of weapons with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective.’ However, the jury doesn’t need to decide whether war crimes were, in fact, committed. What they have to consider is whether the accused believed that war crimes would be committed. The prosecution accepted this at the first trial.

The question of the legality of the war as a whole cannot be presented as a defence to the court. Again, it is the honestly held belief of the two men, that there would be specific crimes committed if the bombing took place, which is relevant.

War crimes in Iraq
The specific war crimes which Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard believed would be committed if war happened concern indiscriminate bombing, the use of cluster bombs, and weapons containing depleted uranium (DU), and the disproportionate harm civilians would suffer from them, and the possible use of experimental weapons.

The number of civilian casualties of the Iraq war, as of 3 May 2007, is estimated at between 62,770 and 68,796 based on media reports from recognised sources[1]. A study published in the Lancet in October 2006 put the figure at over 650,000. For comparison, military casualties are lower. US military casualties to date number 3,355 [2]; other coalition troop casualties total 272 including 147 British military casualties[3] . Casualties among Iraqi security forces are estimated at 6,555 [3]. The financial cost of the war in Iraq to date (May 2007) to the US taxpayer, is said to be approximately $385 billion[4].

Cluster bombs, DU weapons
Cluster bombs contain approximately 200 submunitions ('bomblets'). These typically spread over an area of about 100 metres by 200 metres. They are designed to explode on impact, some to penetrate armour and buildings, some to fragment and project a hail of shrapnel in all directions. All are designed to kill. Some do so immediately, and some explode on impact but cause no casualties. Others, between 5 and 20% of all the small bombs, fail to explode on impact and remain where they land. They're then effectively landmines which can kill and maim for decades afterwards.

After a war is over civilians are the people most likely to be hurt by these unexploded cluster bombs. Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions it is a war crime to use weapons like this, which will cause disproportionate civilian casualties and continue to harm people after the war is over. For example, during the first Gulf War about 50,000 of the United States cluster bombs were dropped, releasing over 13,000,000 small bombs. The military gives a very conservative estimate that 5% of these bombs would fail to explode on impact, meaning there would be 650,000 small unexploded bombs lying around. Every one of these, unless disposed of properly, would remain able to kill or maim if stepped on or touched.

There are similar concerns about the use of depleted uranium in munitions. This gives 'bunker busting' bombs their penetrating ability, but in the process scatters radioactive uranium dust and fragments which can be carried on the wind for miles around, contaminating the soil, water, crops and livestock, and being ingested and inhaled by people. The consequences of this include: genetic mutations, congenital defects, and increased incidence of cancers. The Gulf War Veterans Association says a number of UK and US veterans have been found to have DU in their urine almost a decade after the first Gulf Conflict, and that the its presence increases the risk of cancers, disruption of reproductive hormones, and lowered neuro-cognitive performance. A recently published study by the University of Southern Maine shows that inhaled DU dust causes widespread damage to DNA in lung tissue, which could lead to lung cancer.

References: 1- Iraq Body Count: (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/); 2- The Randolph Bourne Institute: (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/); 3- Iraq Coalition Casualty Count: (http://www.icasualties.org); 4- Steve Stoft, economist: (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11th October 2006

Jury Discharged: Prosecution fail to prove bomber disarmament action a crime: Peace activists face retrial at Bristol Crown Court

The judge in the case of two Oxford based peace activists charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage has today discharged the jury after they were unable to reach a verdict. In a trial lasting 8 days the prosecution failed to prove that the planned disarmament action was a crime. The jury at Bristol Crown Court heard how Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch broke into RAF Fairford 3 and half years ago with the intention of grounding US Airforce bombers bound for Iraq. Last month the trial of two other peace activists also resulted in a hung jury. Both cases are likely to go to retrial next year.

Giving evidence last week, Pritchard (a self-employed carpenter and father) and Olditch (a self-employed builder) argued that their actions were justified and lawful because they were protecting Iraqi property and aiming to prevent war crimes. It was their belief that the dropping of cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs[1] on Iraq would constitute a war crime because of the disproportionate damage these weapons cause to civilians and the infrastructure. As part of their defence, international expert and Nobel Laureate Rae McGrath gave evidence of the horrific effects of the bombs that were to be used in the 48 hour "Shock and Awe" operation. The court was told that the number of bombs to be used would be equivalent to the total used in the whole of the first Gulf war.

In a video they took with them on their disarmament action Pritchard and Olditch detailed their many anti-war protests leading up to the action, and explained how they had planned to ensure that their peaceful actions saved lives In Iraq whilst causing no risk to military personnel in this country.

Philip Pritchard said;
“It is devastating that our politicians took the road to war; we took responsible action and set out to stop B52 bombers. I stand by our decision to try to stop the bombing of Iraq and hope that cluster bombs and depleted uranium will never be used again. I hope the jury will hear our evidence at the next trial and acquit.”

ENDS

Photos available from outside court on the final day of the trial
Contact for media: 07910 329 211
For further info see – daily court blog

Editor Notes:
Venue: Bristol Crown Court, Small Street Bristol BS1 1DA

Background: Phil and Toby entered RAF Fairford on 18th March 2003 with the intent of disarming B52 bombers bound for Iraq. They carried paint, nuts and bolts to gunk up the engine and fencing pliers intended to damage the aiming mechanism on the bomber. Following their arrest they were held on remand in HMP Gloucester for 3 months. Since then they have been involved in a series of legal hearings culminating in this trial. In February 2006 after a five day hearing in the House of Lords the Law Lords ruled out the defence that they were acting to prevent a crime of aggression. In that trial the defendants argued that they acted lawfully to prevent war crimes and damage to property. The trial of Paul Milling and Margaret Jones also arrested at RAF Fairford on similar charges resulted in a hung jury in September 2006.

[1]
Cluster bombs leave an unmapped minefield of unexploded bomblets; depleted uranium bombs leave a toxic radioactive dust that contaminates farmland, water and anyone that ingests or inhales the particles. These radioactive particles cause cancers, birth defects and have been found in Gulf War veterans’ urine almost a decade after the first Gulf War.

The number of civilian casualties of the Iraq war have been estimated at between 43,799 and 48,639 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/) based on media reports from recognised sources. However, a study published in the Lancet in 2006 put the figure at over 650,000. (The Lancet - Oct 2006)

US military casualties to date number 2737 (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ ) and other coalition troop casualties total 232 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/) including 119 British military casualties (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/)
Casualties among Iraqi security forces are estimated at 5,182 by the Brookings Institute’s Iraq Body Count (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5052138.stm)

The financial cost of the war to date to the US taxpayer is said to be $330,396,278,070 (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the latest press information contact:

B52 Two Support Group,
c/o 16b Cherwell Street
Oxford OX4 1BG
Phone: 07910 329 211
Email: inspiraction2003@yahoo.co.uk

Download the latest newsletter - Spring 2007 (pdf)

Last updated: 12th May 2007