British Crop Pullers Cleared of Charges

GM crop protesters cleared in high court test case

THE GUARDIAN
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Wednesday October 17, 2001

Protesters who pulled up genetically modified crops had their
convictions quashed in the high court yesterday in a ruling which will
make campaigners who destroy GM crops hard to prosecute.

The protesters' success means that attempts by the crown prosecution
service to use an offence of "aggravated trespass" as a quick way of
snuffing out protests will not be allowed. A number of pending trials
may now have to be scrapped.

The aggravated trespass charge was included in the Public Order Act of
1994 to allow the arrest and removal of road protesters who were
interfering with contractors.

But Mrs Justice Rafferty said the same charge could not be used against
crop campaigners pulling out plants because there was no one in the
fields they were attacking.

At the centre of yesterday's case was Rowan Tilley, 42, from Brighton,
who had been convicted with others by Cambridge magistrates in June
last year for aggravated trespass after pulling up crops.

Later, after destroying other crops in Dorset with a different team, she
was acquitted in June this year by Weymouth magistrates on the same
charge. Both magistrates' decisions were the subject of yesterday's
appeal.

The CPS was told that aggravated trespass was a public order offence,
which required the disruption of a lawful "activity". But the judge said
such a charge could not apply if there was no "activity" taking place
and no one to be intimidated or being prevented with getting on with
what they wanted to do. It required the presence of a farmer or people
working in the fields.

The decision leaves the CPS with a serious problem. Initially crop
protesters had been charged with criminal damage but these charges were
dropped after a jury at Norwich crown court a year ago found Greenpeace
protesters not guilty on similar charges.

The jury accepted the Greenpeace defence that criminal damage was
justified if it was used to defend a greater public interest, namely
preventing the contamination of the environment by genetically modified
organisms.

Following this trial, all charges of criminal damage against GM
protesters which might have to go before juries were dropped in favour
of aggravated trespass which could be dealt with by magistrates.

Ms Tilley, who had been fined [pounds]250 with [pounds]250 costs, said:
"Once Greenpeace were acquitted by a jury, the charges were changed at
the last minute. There was clearly manipulation behind the scenes
because they wanted to avoid us putting our case before a jury too.

"If there is more than [pounds]5,000 damage we have the right to appear
before a jury but if it is less, it is dealt with by magistrates.

"We had the mad situation where they were arguing we had caused hardly
any damage and we were saying we had caused lots. Fearing we might win
this argument and it would have to go for jury trial, they changed the
charges."

Another of the six Weymouth defendants, David Cooper, who attacked a GM
maize crop to stop his organic fields being contaminated, said: "There
was no local consultation about planting the crop. We were defending
ourselves, and we wanted to use a public interest defence but were not
allowed." Since the original cases Ms Tilley has pulled up five more
crops without being charged. About 20 other crop destroyers have been
arrested but still await charges, among them the Guardian columnist,
George Monbiot.

The CPS said it might appeal to the House of Lords against yesterday's
judgment.