Convicted: 12th November 2002, Harrogate Magistrates' Court, District Judge D Anderson.

Sentence: Bound over for I year in sum of £300; ordered to pay costs and compensation: £1,111.

Appeal dismissed: 7th August 2003, Leeds Crown Court, Judge: Recorder P W Worsley QC and two magistrates.

Sentence: Bind over upheld: ordered to pay £1,111 + £350 (Crown Court costs).

The Judge dismissed the Appeal before hearing defence evidence.

The facts in the case were not in dispute. I admitted to cutting the fence. My admission was the only prima facie evidence to prove the prosecution case.

The defences:
a). Criminal Law Act 1967 s3: act pursuant to 'prevention of a greater crime'.
b). Common Law defences of 'necessity' ('duress of circumstances') and self defence.

The 'greater crime' committed by US National Security Aency at Menwith Hill, etc
Inter alia
(i) The US National Security Agency (NSA) at Menwith Hill Station (MHS) is engaged in preparation and conduct of wars of aggression (former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq) in breach of Nuremberg Principles VI.
(ii) US NSA at MHS is engaged in interception of communications in breach of Human Rights' Act, Article 8: the right to privacy.
(iii) The US NSA is engaged in the sovereign activities of the US State and is thus immune from the jurisdiction of the UK Courts. I am charged by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), which is thus acting in bad faith, by colluding with, and dishonestly covering up, abuses, malpractices and criminal activities perpetrated by the US NSA.

How the act of cutting Menwith Hill's security fence could prevent the 'greater crime' and protect people including myself from threats to our safety:

My act was done to support of the demand for a Public Inquiry into the activities at MHS. I was attempting to deliver a letter to, and intended to speak to, the Station's Director of Installations, US NSA HQ Building 29, the US employee responsible for oversight of developments at Menwith Hill. The letter addressed concerns relating to developments at MHS, particularly security measures to counter the threat of a 'terrorist' attack on the Station. The UK Parliament's Security and Intelligence Committee recognises that MHS is a target for attack and there would be 'collateral damage' meaning that people in the locality would be killed. MHS poses a threat to me as well as other people living nearby.

The letter, part of a series of unacknowledged letters, reinforced the call for a Public Inquiry. I anticipate that a Public Inquiry's recommendation would result in the establishment of a Commission with oversight responsibility and statutory powers to ensure that MHS Operations comply with UK and EU Law. MHS would then be obliged to cease its illegal operations, i.e. everything in which it is engaged. It would close down.

Defence arguments a) and b) were dismissed without hearing evidence, on the grounds that they did not constitute a defence because the act was too remote from the objective.

c). Criminal Damage Act 1971, s(5)(2b): 'protection of a right'.

The Judge asserted that the only possible defence was my removal of the unlawful obstruction across the public right of way - as a last resort when all other avenues to obtain a remedy had been exhausted.
The Judge conceded that I had evidence of unlawful closure and diversion of the public right of way and its unlawful obstruction and that the responsible statutory authorities had failed to act. He dismissed the defence on the grounds that there was not an 'immediate need' to protect the right. He dismissed the authority established in the case of Chamberlain v Lindon, 1998 in which Lindon was acquitted of criminal damage for removal of a nine-month old unlawful obstruction, on the grounds that his act was to avoid litigation and in my case it was to achieve it.

d). The act was morally justified and in the public interest. There exists a conspiracy of lies to cover up the illegal activities carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA) at Menwith Hill (MHS). The consequence of my act will be to expose these abuses to public scrutiny.

Not a recognised legal defence.

The Judge deliberately prevented the disclosure of the evidence of the US NSA's unlawful activities and UK MoD's collusion. He ignored the question whether he could authorise me to pay compensation for replacement of an unlawful obstruction across a public right of way. Was he compounding a crime?
I have decided not to appeal the case to the High Court. An adverse decision at that level would set a precedent to be used against future fence-cutters.

Anne Lee