CONTENTS

1) Summary of latest episode
2) Background to the action: Who? What? Where? When?
3) Full details of each episode
4) Next hearing
5) Information for supporters
6) Future's statement (extracts)
7) Comment from George Monbiot in The Guardian
8) For further information 

1) SUMMARY OF LATEST EPISODE (see 3.7 and 3.8 for details) ”¦. in which the Crown Prosecution is put on trial !

On 16 February 2001 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court the struggle for a jury trial culminated in a Tribunal to test the charge of abuse of process made by the seven defendants.  The defence argued that changing their charges  to aggravated trespass, which must be tried by a Magistrate, was an abuse of process.  The Tribunal lasted a full day in which, bizarrely, Crown Prosecution Service representatives were cross-examined in the witness box by Defence Barrister Anya Lewis and defendants Simon Fairlie and Mike Zair conducting their own defence, or in this case, acting as The Peoples' Prosecutors of the prosecution !

During two hours of questioning Senior Crown Prosecutor Julia Woodward  said she foresaw major difficulties in clinching a conviction against the crop pullers. It was revealed that she took advice from the Prosecutor who had lost his case in the Greenpeace trial in Norwich and who advised her to change the charges to aggravated trespass.  She had also noted defendant Rowan Tilly's previous conviction of aggravated trespass for pulling up GM crops.  She eventually said that it was easy to look back with hindsight and conceded that she would look at the case very differently now.

The case was adjourned at 5.30pm until 21 February 2001 at Winbourne Magistrates' Court for the verdict.

The Stipendiary Magistrate ruled that, although there clearly had been prejudice against the seven defendants, this was not sufficient to reach the high standards of the test of abuse of process.

The case will now proceed to trial at Weymouth Magistrates Court and the charges of aggravated trespass will remain.

The defendants were pleased with the proceedings since the Tribunal has made public that the Prosecution were prejudiced and prepared to use manipulation in order to get a conviction.

N.B.  Defendant Rowan Tilly is appealing a previous GM crop pulling conviction of aggravated trespass at the High Court.  If she wins it will set a legal precedent making it impossible to use the charge of aggravated trespass on GM crop pullers (unless there is a worker present at the time of the action).  She is pressing for the appeal to take place before the SURGE trial.

2)  BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION:  WHO? WHAT? WHERE? WHEN?

The SURGE 7 are the seven defendants (Chris Black, David Cooper, Simon Fairlie, Judie Holme, Jack Hooker, Rowan Tilly, Mike Zair) charged for nonviolently pulling up GM maize from a government farm-scale trial site  at Over Compton, Dorset in the UK last July.  

The day began with a public rally organised by the Southern Union of Resistance to Genetic Engineering (SURGE) attended by about 300 people. Speakers included local people and a local bee keeper.  One speaker in favour of GM was a GriM Reaper who congratulated biotech corporations for sowing death in the fields.  The procession to the farm-scale trial of GM maize was led by three GriM Reapers who said that after hearing the speeches they now feared that the biotech companies are making a take-over bid for death by using GM and that Aventis might even try to patent death pushing them out of their age-old traditional domain.  

About a hundred people joined in with pulling up about 15% of the GM maize watched by a handful of police and many supporters.  The police moved in after 45 minutes.  The GriM Reapers were amongst the seven who were arrested (great photos available of this).  Most of those charged had intended to take responsibility for their actions.  One calling herself "for the future" refused to give her details to the police.  "Future" gave a full statement (see below for extracts) in solidarity with future generations who do not have a voice in the present.  She was charged with criminal damage and held for 36 hours until identified via her finger-prints whereupon she was ejected.  The other six arrested were released promptly on police bail to consider the evidence pending possible charges and were subsequently charged with criminal damage in August.

3)  FULL DETAILS OF EACH EPISODE

3.1)  First Hearing on 20 July 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court 

This hearing was for Rowan Tilly since all other defendants had not yet been charged.  Her Solicitor asked for an adjournment pending possible charges of other defendants but was refused. It was cancelled whilst she was on her way to Weymouth Magistrates Court from Brighton.

3.2)  Second Hearing on 18 August 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court

All seven defendants present, a further six defendants having been charged with criminal damage earlier in the week were expected to have met with a solicitor and decided on how to plead by the end of the week.  Needless to say they were unable to come to a decision and the hearing was adjourned. The Prosecution told the Defence Barrister that the court fully intended  to keep the trial in a Magistrates Court "to prevent them from using the  court as a mouth-piece".  

3.3)  Third Hearing on 1 September 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court

At the second hearing the defendants produced evidence from two experts: Dr. Sue Mayer and Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher showing that the value of the damage was either millions of pounds or uncertain.  The prosecution was granted their request for time to think this one over.  

3.4)  Fourth Hearing on 18 September 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court  

The prosecution announced their withdrawal of charges of criminal damage and are now charging the defendants with aggravated trespass - which must be tried in a Magistrates Court.  In other words, they realised they could well lose the battle over the value of damages so they have backed off and adopted an easier line of attack.  This travesty of justice was objected  by the Defence as an abuse of process. Another hearing is needed to hear the Defence's challenge. All seven defendants made their plea of "not guilty".  

3.5)  Fifth Hearing on 20 October 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court

The Prosecution were late in coming up with responses to the Defence's challenge.  Hence the Defence had not had time to call all the necessary witnesses.  The Magistrate ruled that a Tribunal should be held to assess the possibility of abuse of process and a Pre-Trial Review will be needed to work out the details.  Meanwhile the Magistrate was not willing to proceed with a Pre-Trial Review for a trial on the aggravated trespass charges until the question over the abuse of process has been settled.

If the Abuse of Process challenge is successful then the Magistrate would probably throw out the whole case.  If we lose, then the case proceeds  with a Magistrates Court Trial for aggravated trespass.

3.6)  Sixth Hearing on 10 November 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court

Pre-Trial Review in preparation for a Tribunal on abuse of process.  This hearing was largely administrative faff.  About half the defendants were prevented from attending by transport failures caused by climate change. (Some defendants had already warned the courts about the impending impact of climate change caused by cars years ago but were ignored and convicted - WE TOLD YOU SO !). 

3.7)  Seventh Hearing on 16 February 2001 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court

On 16 February 2001 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court the struggle for a jury trial culminated in a Tribunal to test the charge of abuse of process made by the seven defendants.  They argued that changing their charges to aggravated trespass, which must be tried by a Magistrate, was an abuse of process.  The Tribunal lasted a full day in which, bizarrely, Crown Prosecution Service representatives were cross-examined in the witness box by Defence Barrister Anya Lewis and defendants Simon Fairlie and Mike Zair conducted their own defence, or in this case, acted as The Peoples' Prosecutors of the prosecution !

The defence called Defence Barrister Boyle who reported that Prosecutor Upton had said  that the Crown intended to keep the defendants out of a jury trial in order to prevent us from using the court as a mouthpiece. Then Prosecutor Upton was called, who had no memory of Boyle's allegation.

During two hours of questioning Senior Crown Prosecutor Julia Woodward  said she foresaw major difficulties in clinching a conviction against the crop pullers.  The Defence's expert evidence findings on the damage to the GM crops pointed to a jury trial. She couldn't determine the value of the  crop since it clearly had no commercial value which raised the possibility that there was no determinable loss. She claimed that the evidence suggested that it would be difficult to prove there had been any damage.  However, when it was pointed out to her that every defendant had clearly explained how much GM crop they had pulled up she relented.  It was revealed that  she took advice from the Prosecutor who had lost his case in the Greenpeace trial in Norwich and who advised her to change the charges to aggravated trespass.  She had also noted defendant Rowan Tilly's previous conviction of aggravated trespass for pulling up GM crops.  She eventually said that it was easy to look back with hindsight and conceded that she would look  at the case very differently now.

Defence Barrister Anya Lewis objected to the change of their charges to aggravated trespass which must be tried by a Magistrate and which curtails their public interest defence for openly pulling up GM crops.

Simon Fairlie drew the Magistrates' attention to the extraordinary number of hearings for this case at great cost with very little progress to be  seen.

The case was adjourned at 5.30pm.

3.8)  Eighth Hearing on 21 February 2001 at Winbourne Magistrates' Court

The verdict on the "abuse of process" Tribunal.

The Stipendiary Magistrate ruled that, although there clearly had been prejudice against the seven defendants, this was not sufficient to reach the high standards of the test of abuse of process.  However, he did say that he could see no reason why a common law defence of necessity should not be allowed.  Past experience has shown repeatedly that Magistrates ignore such defences and will only consider statutory defences of "lawful excuse", as used in previous genetiX trials.  The fact that this  Magistrate has clearly said a necessity defence should be allowed may help.  However, this Magistrate will not preside over the trial.

The case will now proceed to trial at Weymouth Magistrates Court and the charges of aggravated trespass will remain.

The defendants were pleased with the proceedings since the Tribunal has made public that the Prosecution were prejudiced and prepared to use manipulation in order to get a conviction.

N.B.  Defendant Rowan Tilly is appealing a previous GM crop pulling conviction of aggravated trespass at the High Court.  If she wins it will set a legal precedent making it impossible to use the charge of aggravated trespass on GM crop pullers (unless there is a worker present at the time of the action).  She is pressing for the appeal to take place before the SURGE trial.

4) NEXT HEARING

The next hearing will be a Pre-Trial Review at 2.00 pm on 3 April 2000 at Weymouth Magistrates' Court.  This hearing will be to set out the  framework for the trial: the date, the witnesses, the expert witnesses, the skeleton defence.  It should be moderately interesting but not worth attending unless you are local.

5) INFORMATION FOR SUPPORTERS FROM DEFENDANTS  Please pass this message to anyone you know who might be coming to court hearings.

Thanks to everyone who has been supporting our action at court hearings in Weymouth.  It is really affirming to know that people in this region think that what we did was right and show their support by coming to hearings.  We really value your support.  We also appreciate that you are busy people  and if your time is limited it is much more important to have you at the Trial than to unimportant pre-trial hearings, especially when it invariably involves hanging around waiting beforehand.  Supporting us at The Trial  and at the more significant of the pre-trial hearings is a good way to let other folk and the establishment know that people support the action.

Unfortunately the court is rather a stiff and sniffy sort of place that doesn't like ordinary folk getting involved with the hearing or being demonstrative about their support.  You are supposed to just sit there passively without a voice and watch the injustice of it all and not get angry.  We have been warned by the court that our supporters have been "disruptive" and that's bad news for us.  

Please show your solidarity with our action by being silent, respectful  and following the court ritual.  Breathe deeply on patience and dignity and do it for Justice.  Please don't bring any placards, banners, tape recorders, food, drinks, etc. into the court and turn mobile phones off.  You are not allowed to take notes but if everybody is "good" you can usually get away with it if you are discrete.  We can have banners and placards outside the court and people handing out leaflets (this would be good to do when we finally get our trial).

The thing is that if you don't submit to their authority the court will take it out on us, the defendants, holding us responsible.  They will possibly clear the court and not allow people into the public gallery anymore.  It will also prejudice the Magistrate against us.

I think there are always times during actions when it's wise to  acknowledge the limits of our power - and to acknowledge this, in itself, is a  powerful thing.  We will most certainly have our powerful moments in the court room - even if we  are "found guilty".  The power of those moments lies as much in your support as it does in our action.

There may well be a time and place later on when we all - defendants included - consider it appropriate for supporters to express your solidarity in some strong and dignified way.  

Many thanks to you all for your understanding and solidarity and hope to see you again soon. 

6) FUTURE'S STATEMENT (extracts)

Extracts from the statement made by "Future" for her action to remove GM crops in July 2000 at Over Compton, Dorset.  In solidarity with future generations who do not have a voice in the present, she refused to give  her details to the police, calling herself "for the future".  She read out her statement in her police interview.  She is one of seven who have been charged with criminal damage.  Future's full statement is available. 

  "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and the  daughters  Of life's longing for itself. They come through you, But they are not  from you, And though they are with you, They belong not to you.

You can give them your love, But not your thoughts. They have their own thoughts. They have their own thoughts. You can house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in a place of tomorrow, Which you  cannot visit, Not even in your dreams.

You can strive to be like them, But you cannot make them just like you. Strive to be like them, But you cannot make them just like you."

Song by Sweet Honey in the Rock based on prose by Kahil Gibran

Rachel Carson was the first person I ever heard of who blew the whistle on impending environmental disaster.  Karen Silkwood and Judi Bari were both murdered for their part in sounding the alarm.  These people acted as custodians of the Earth and held the future for us to inherit.  Now it is our turn.  We can honour the memory of our ancestors and their good work  by holding the future for our children.  We are already passing on a legacy  of nuclear waste and toxic pollutants.  Now we are adding a living, self-replicating pollution in the form of genetically modified (GM) crops, which threatens to close the doors of choice for future generations for ever.  We will never be free of the possibility of genetic engineering now that it has been invented.  We cannot know what people of the future will do about genetic engineering, whether they will uphold the choices we  make. Our responsibility is to choose wisely now and give them the possibility  to make a wise choice for the future of their children. 

It is clear to me that GM crops and products represent a real and terrible danger to our health, the environment, to the way our society operates, now, and even more so in the future.

At the end of this statement I have listed and attached twenty seven articles and briefings which give background information, including scientific papers, which back up my beliefs that the GM maize I will be pulling up on 16 July 2000 is a danger to public health and the  environment and is illegal.

In the last four years I have campaigned against GM crops, products and  the patenting of life - human body parts, animals and plants.  I have participated in a total of six actions to decontaminate GM releases. 

On Sunday 16 July 2000 I will be pulling up as many GM maize plants as possible in the hours of daylight from the farmscale trial site at Silverlake Farm near Over Compton.  I will not engage in physical violence or knowingly take part in any action that will cause harm.  I will try to create an atmosphere of calm and will treat anyone I encounter with respect.  These methods are consistent with my vision of a society which  is founded on democracy, social justice and peace.  My witness is an active expression of nonviolence: anything which damages the Earth or her inhabitants, disgraces our ancestors or threatens future generations, is inherently violent and should not exist as "property".  The safe removal  of GM crops is a legitimate step towards preventing the immediate danger from these products in our midst which threaten our health and natural ecology wherever they are grown.  

I take full responsibility for my action.  In solidarity with the nameless children of the future, whose possible existence on Earth becomes increasingly uncertain, I will not give my name or address.  In being anonymous myself, for a short time, I hope to offer up a challenge for us all to take account of beings in the future who have no voice here in the present.  We must listen to what they might say about GM crops here and  now threatening their future. They have rights too and by applying the precautionary principle we can give them a voice on the current dangers of GM crops which will change their world for ever, irreversibly.  We can protect the integrity and sacredness of life we inherited from our ancestors - so much more than a DNA code - and pass it on to our children in hope that they too will cherish it.

For Grace, Harriet and the children of the future.

Signed:  for the future

Date:  15 July 2000

7) COMMENT FROM GEORGE MONBIOT IN THE GUARDIAN, 28 September 2000  (extract)

As the Human Rights Act looms into view, the government is beginning to panic. Concerned that juries are using their moral judgment to interpret the law, it seems to be doing all it can to shore up Britain's oppressive legal system. Protesters arrested for destroying a GM crop in Dorset this summer complain about what they perceive as overt political interference  in the judicial process. While they were to have been tried for criminal damage, which would have brought them before a jury, the crown prosecution service has reduced the charges to aggravated trespass, which will be  heard in a magistrates' court. The defendants are pressing for more serious charges, while the prosecution is arguing for leniency. 

Jack Straw's attempts to limit trial by jury, which the Lords will start re-examining this week, are beginning to look less like a plan to save money and more like an effort to keep sensitive cases out of the hands of ordinary men and women, who might be moved to agree with the legal arguments raised against the excessive powers of the state and the corporations. This is not, after all, how the legal system is supposed to work.  But these are desperate, rearguard actions to defend a system which is becoming ever less capable of resisting democratic challenges.

The next few months could, as a result, prove to be among the most  exciting periods ever in British politics, as the weight of the law is turned against the very systems it was established to defend. Thanks to the challenges presented by a tiny number of courageous people, Britain may never be the same again.  © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2000 

 8)  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

If you want more information or want to receive regular updates on the SURGE 7 action please send your details, especially email address, to:

Rowan Tilly P.O. Box 3279, Brighton, BN1 1TL. Phone/Fax:  +44 (0) 1273 625173 E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. genetiX snowball web-site: http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/gs

***************************************************
Rowan Tilly P.O. Box 3279, Brighton, BN1 1TL. Phone:  +44 (0) 1273 628441 Fax: +44 (0) 1273 625173 E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. genetiX snowball web-site:  http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/gs ********************************************************************** "Art is not a mirror held up to reality,  but a hammer with which to shape it."             Brecht