The three women appeared on four charges which were basically: -
- That they maliciously and wilfully damaged the vessel Maytime.
- That they attempted to steal two inflatable life rafts.
- That they maliciously and wilfully damaged equipment on board Maytime.
- That they maliciously and wilfully damaged equipment by depositing it 'in the waters of Loch Goil, whereby said items became waterlogged, useless and inoperable'.
Procurator Fiscal David Webster put forward a very simple Crown case. Basically he proved that the three women were on "Maytime" and that they had done all the damage mentioned in the indictment. The only witness connected with "Maytime" was Iain McPhee, the Barge Master, who knew very little about the research undertaken by his barge or its sister vessel "Newt".
The Defence case involved five expert witnesses. Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, University of Illinois, gave evidence that international law applies everywhere, and that, due to its destructive power, Trident could not be used in any manner that was lawful. Judge Ulf Panzer from Germany gave evidence of the legitimacy of nonviolent action to uphold the law. He described how he had campaigned to get American Pershing missiles removed from his country culminating in a sit-down blockade of the Mutlangen base, along with 20 other judges. They had learned from the Nazi era the high cost of remaining silent when their government acted unlawfully. Professor Paul Rogers from Bradford University gave evidence on the composition and capabilities of the Trident system, the imminent danger of nuclear war and accidents and of the effectiveness of civil resistance to change official policies. Professor Jack Boag testified about the imminent danger from nuclear weapons. Finally, Rebecca Johnston of ACRONYM, Geneva, explained the consequences of the failure of successive UK governments to fulfil its obligations to disarm under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and how the present administration is continuing to block negotiations. She described how "Maytime" is an essential part of the Trident weapon system, and how other states perceive Britain's deployment of Trident as a threat.
Advocates John Mayer and John McLaughlin represented Ulla and Ellen, but Angie Zelter defended herself. They all submitted that international law applies in Scotland, that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was found to be generally contrary to international law by the International Court of Justice and the deployment of Trident is seen as a threat. In addition, John Mayer put forward a defence of necessity and John McLaughlin argued that although the women had been wilful they had not been malicious. At the end of their arguments both advocates put a submission to the sheriff that she should remove the verdict from the jury and acquit the women.
In addressing the jury Sheriff Gimblett said "I have to conclude that the three in company with others were justified in thinking that Great Britain in their use of Trident ......could be construed as a threat and as such is an infringement of international and customary law. ...I have heard nothing which would make it seem to me that the accused acted with criminal intent."
Other stories on the same issue:
The [British] government was last night facing demands to order an immediate review of its nuclear weapons programme after a Scottish sheriff ruled Trident was illegal under international law.
The calls came after three women who admitted damaging a Trident nuclear submarine installation were cleared after Sheriff Margaret Gim blett's ruling that they had been acting to prevent a crime under international law and had reasonable excuse for the actions.
The Trident Ploughshare anti-nuclear campaigners caused around #100,000 worth of damage when they "disarmed" Maytime, a floating laboratory at the Faslane naval base, near Lochgoilhead, Argyll, on June 8.
Sheriff Gimblett, sitting at Greenock sheriff court, yester day ordered a jury to acquit Angela Zelter, 48, Ellen Moxley, 63, and Ulla Roder, 45, of charges of malicious mischief and theft, ending a trial which had lasted 4 weeks.
The lord advocate is likely to appeal against the decision. A spokesman for Trident Ploughshare said the ruling left the government's nuclear weapons policy in tatters.
"The pressure is now on the lord advocate to ask the gov ernment to conduct a full legal audit of Trident - or to begin criminal charges," he said.
After refusing to guarantee they would not attack any other nuclear instillation, the three women remain at Cornton Vale prison, Stirling.
They were arrested by ministry of defence police more than three hours
after they boarded the Maytime, a barge which was part of the Trident
nuclear instillation. The three damaged computers and machinery with
superglue, sand and syrup, before throwing the equipment overboard into
Loch Goil. John Mayer, defending,said a 1996 ruling by the international
court of justice made Trident and all nuclear weapons illegal.
But the sheriff told the women they did not have free rein to carry out reckless acts.
A spokeswoman for the ministry of defence said: "The ministry of defence is confident that our nuclear weapons are not illegal and we must remember
that the actual court cases were about malicious damage."
The Scottish National party, which has pledged to rid Scotland of
Britain's nuclear weapons, welcomed the ruling. But the Scottish
Conservative party said it was a charter for "loony pacifists". The women
said they would still support direct action, but would no longer be taking
part themselves.
Also:
The legality of Britain's nuclear arsenal was called into question
yesterday when a Scottish judge ruled that three women who broke into and
caused #80,000 of damage to a nuclear base acted lawfully.
In a landmark decision, Sheriff Margaret Gimblett accepted their defence
that Britain's Trident nuclear programme was illegal under international
law and that they had been acting simply to prevent a crime.
The judgment, based on a controversial 1996 ruling by the International
Court of Justice in The Hague, caused dismay in government circles. The
Scottish Executive announced last night that an appeal on a point of law
was being considered.
Menzies Campbell, defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, attacked
the sheriff's directions to the jury as "plainly wrong". Mr Campbell said
that Sheriff Courts were only at an intermediate level in Scottish law,
adding: "This issue will have to go the High Court which has the ultimate
responsibility in criminal law matters in Scotland."
After the ruling, the jury at Greenock Sheriff Court was ordered to acquit
the women of three charges of maliciously damaging equipment at Faslane
naval base near Lochgoilhead, Argyll. Angela Zelter, 48, Ellen Moxley, 63,
and Bodil Ulla Roder, 42, walked free to cheers at the end of a
four-and-a-half week trial. They were arrested after boarding a barge that
was part of the Trident installation.
Sheriff Gimblett said: "Yesterday I made it clear that the courts do not
allow crimes to be committed to prevent other crimes except in very
special circumstances. There were such circumstances in this case."
However, she warned the women not to believe that they might be similarly
treated if they took further direct action.
Richard Plender, QC, an expert in international law, said he was surprised
by the Greenock ruling. He said advisory opinions of the International
Court of Justice are not binding and they only affect the relationship
between countries, not between an individual and the state. A spokeswoman
for the Ministry of Defence said the Government was "confident" that its
nuclear policy was legal under international law.
However, the Greenock decision will be seen as giving the green light to
further direct action against British nuclear bases and a flood of appeals
against convictions of activists.
Speaking after the verdict, Ms Zelter said the ruling was a turning point,
and called for a full independent inquiry into the legality of Britain's
nuclear deterrent arsenal.
Also:
The protesters filmed their actions at the research unit
A sheriff has allowed three anti-nuclear activists to walk free on charges of damaging a Trident nuclear submarine after she said the weapons were illegal under international law.
The CND campaigners were accused of attacking a barge and laboratory equipment at the Faslane Naval Base near Lochgoilhead, Argyll.
But a jury at Greenock Sheriff Court was ordered to acquit the women after Sheriff Margaret Gimblett ruled they had a right to "disarm" the base.
The three women, Angela Zelter, 48, Ellen Moxley, 45, and Bodil Ulla Roder, 45, faced three charges of maliciously damaging equipment at the base.
There were cheers and applause as the women walked free from the court after the trial which, lasted four and a half weeks.
They had been held on remand at Cornton Vale Women's Prison since their arrest at the Clydeside base on 8 June.
The women were arrested after boarding a barge which was part of the Trident installation.
They had been charged with maliciously damaging the vessel called Maytime, stealing two inflatable life rafts and damaging equipment in an on-board laboratory.
The equipment was thrown overboard into Loch Goil before they were arrested by Ministry of Defence police.
But Sheriff Gimblett said she accepted the argument put forward by defence advocate John Mayer, who said Trident was illegal under international law and the women were acting simply to prevent a crime.
Court of justice
Mr Mayer said a ruling by the International Court of Justice in 1996 made Trident and all nuclear weapons illegal.
This meant the women had basically committed a crime but were acting to prevent other crimes taking place and so in Scots law should be acquitted, he told the court.
Addressing the activists after the jury had delivered a formal verdict, the sheriff told them they should not regard this as meaning they would be able to carry out such actions recklessly.
"Yesterday I made it clear that the courts do not allow crimes to be committed to prevent other crimes except in very special circumstances," she said.
"There were such circumstances in this particular case and the same circumstances may not apply to anyone who carries out actions similar to those carried out at Maytime in June.
"You do so at your peril - be very careful."
'Not unexpected'
She told BBC Radio Scotland: "We've been working very, very hard to get international laws accepted in Scotland.
"This was part of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and for the first time it has been recognised as applying to Trident in Scotland."
Ms Moxley said the protesters' action was justified because the equipment targeted "was illegal" under international law.
However, she said it would now be up to campaigners to decide whether or not to escalate their "non violent action" in the light of the sheriff's ruling but stressed that it had not been viewed as opening the floodgates on further activity.
But Conservative MSP Phil Gallie attacked the sheriff's decision.
He said: "I'm very angry. I find it incredible that individuals can take it upon themselves to go on to private property, do damage at the expense of the taxpayer - I just can't understand the sheriff's ruling."
The Crown is understood to be considering an appeal against the ruling and Dr Iain Scobbie, an expert on international law at Glasgow University, said it was likely the ruling would be overturned if an appeal went ahead.
He said: "The ruling does set a precedent but it is a very low level precedent and I would imagine it would be re-examined by the Crown Office for possible appeal on a point of law."
Dr Scobbie said the defence's argument revolved around an "opinion" expressed by the International Court of Justice.
"The court was simply giving legal advice to the general assembly of the United Nations. It's not binding the General Assembly and states can choose not to accept the court's advice."
Also:
The Trident programme has cost millions of pounds A sheriff has allowed
three anti-nuclear activists to walk free on charges of damaging a Trident
nuclear submarine after she said the weapons were illegal under
international law.
The CND campaigners were accused of attacking a barge and laboratory
equipment at the Faslane Naval Base near Lochgoilhead, Argyll.
But a jury at Greenock Sheriff Court was ordered to acquit the women after
Sheriff Margaret Gimblett ruled they had a right to "disarm" the base.
The three women, Angela Zelter, 48, Ellen Moxley, 45, and Bodil Ulla
Roder, 45, who is Danish, faced three charges of maliciously damaging
equipment at the base.
There were cheers and applause as the women walked free from the court after the trial which has lasted four and a half weeks.
They had been held on remand at Cornton Vale Women's Prison since their arrest at the Clydeside base on 8 June.
The women were arrested after boarding a barge which was part of the Trident installation.
They had been charged with maliciously damaging the vessel called Maytime, stealing two inflatable life rafts and damaging equipment in an on-board laboratory.
'Acting to prevent a crime'
The equipment was thrown overboard into Loch Goil before they were arrested by Ministry of Defence police.
But Sheriff Gimblett said she accepted the argument put forward by defence advocate John Mayer who said Trident was illegal under international law and the women were acting simply to prevent a crime.
Mr Mayer said a ruling by the International Court of Justice in 1996 made Trident and all nuclear weapons illegal.
This meant the women had basically committed a crime but were acting to
prevent other crimes taking place and so in Scots law should be acquitted, he told the court.
'Be very careful'
Addressing the activists after the jury had delivered a formal verdict,
the sheriff told them they should not regard this as meaning they would be
able to carry out such actions recklessly.
"Yesterday I made it clear that the courts do not allow crimes to be
committed to prevent other crimes except in very special circumstances," she said.
"There were such circumstances in this particular case and the same
circumstances may not apply to anyone who carries out actions similar to
those carried out at Maytime in June.
Also:
Greenock Sheriff Court 2.08 pm Wednesday 20th October 1999
On Thursday 21st October Sheriff Margaret Gimblett instructed the jury at
Greenock Sheriff court to acquit Angie Zelter, Ellen Moxley and Ulla Roder,
who had been charged with causing £80,000 damage to a Trident related
acoustic research barge in Loch Goil, during a Trident Ploughshares action.
The jury then agreed to acquit the accused. The full reasons for her
decision were given in court the day before. The following is a reasonable
transcript of what she said then:
Firstly the three accused consider Trident was being used illegally
based on an understanding on what international law said and on advice given
to them; if they were right that the use and threat of nuclear weapons was illegal,
not just possession, then they had a right given the enormity of the risks of nuclear
weapons to try and do something to stop that illegality.
Secondly they had an absolute necessity, in which case it didn't matter whether Trident is illegal or not, the necessity was there.
In considering this I have really not a great deal to go on other than what
the ICJ said in 1996 and their opinion, which although advisory, acknowledges in
words what is authoritative and agreed by all. On the face of it
very careful consideration should be given to its terms.
In reaching their opinion the ICJ based the opinion on all the body of law
that went before it which was carefully outlined. That law was canvassed in court.
The opinion did not say possession of nuclear weapons was illegal, nowhere does any law say that.
Even our own High Court of Judiciary has said that possession of nuclear
weapons is not itself illegal. They did not consider the law except
as far as it related to possession. The Helen John case can be
distinguished. Here there is a defence of international law and
necessity, but the whole defence hinges on the use made of nuclear
weapons now and the percieved threat or threats made by the nuclear
state. The use or threat of use, I would conceed that the ICJ did
not say that in all circumstances threat or use of nuclear weapons
was universally prohibited. Equally there no conventional law that authorises
the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
They issued what may be considered an enigmatic decision which has been read
on a number of occassions "the threat or use of nuclear
weapons would be generally contrary to the rules and principles of
international law applicable in armed conflict and in particular the
principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current
state of international law and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court
cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons
would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of
self-defence, in which the very survival of the State would be at
stake."
The last words are important. We do not know what they meant by generally, but their final
conclusion implies that the use or threat could only apply in very
tight circumstances of sefl defence the very survival of the state.
The President of the ICJ said "I cannot overemphasise that the inability
of the court to go further than the formal pronouncement at which it has
arrived cannot in any way be interpreted as a half-open door to recognition
of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear armaments."
Also the way in which the judges voted showed that a majority voted
against the use of nuclear weapons. Lord Murray quote on this very helpful given the status of Lord Murray:
"Turning to the central matter the judges were divided until the President's casting
vote. The court decided that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is
unlawful under all circumstances except last resort self-defence to avoid annihilation. Three
of the judges dissenting took the opposite view to the other four dissenters. Four
said that nuclear threat or use in not unlawful. The other three considered that
nuclear threat or use is always unlawful. It follows that an absolute majority of 10 out
of 14 judged that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is either entirely illegal or
generally illegal subject to one possible exception. A two thirds majority rejected
the general lawfulness of nuclear weapons."
I have the ividious task of deciding on international law as it relates to nuclear weapons.
I am only a very junior sheriff without the wisdom or experience of those above me. I have
a knowledge of the repercussions which could be far reaching. As a sheriff I took an oath
to act without fear or favour in interpreting the law.
A point of international law has been raised here and I have to answer it.
I take comfort from the fact that there are other higher courts which can rectify any mistake.
In the absence of anything other than the ICJ and having regard to the article by Lord
Murray, in particular the part relating to treaties and conventions ...
Lord Murrays article concludes "there then are the principles on which the lawfulness of the proposed use of a particular weapons are to be
assessed .. to be noted that in so far as they consist of international customary law they are part of the domestic laws of this country."
I listened carefully to Professor Boyle and have taken into account all the
evidence in this case from him and the other experts and in the absence of any expert contradictory
evidence from the crown, I have to conclude that the three accused in company with many others were justified in thinking that Great
Britain in their use of Trident, not simply possession, the use and deployment of Trident allied with that use and deployment at times of
great unrest, coupled with a first strike policy and in the absence of indication from any government official then or now that such use
fell into any strict category suggested suggested in the ICJ opinion .. the threat or use of Trident could be construed as a threat, has
indeed been construed by others as a threat and as such is an infringement of international and customary law.
The three took the view that if Trident is illegal, given the horrendous nature
of nuclear weapons, they had the obligation in terms of international law to do whatever little they could to stop the deployment
and use of nuclear weapons in situations which could be construed as a threat.
It follows, if I consider that Angie Zelter, Ulla Roder and Ellen Moxley
were justified in the first leg of their defence and having given that
as the principle reason the crown has a duty to rebut that defence.
They have not done so and so I uphold the three defence submitions
in so far as they refer to malicious and willful damage.
I uphold the comments of Mr McLaughlin with regard to malice. Gordon
says "no act is punishable unless it is committed with a criminal
mind ..." I have heard nothing which would make it seem to me that
the accused acted with criminal intent Therefore I will instruct the
jury that they should acquit all three accused on charges 1 to 3
which leaves only the alternative in charge 4, they should also be acquited on the first alternative in charge 4.
If anyone else takes such action they do so at their peril. The law
is not clear on nuclear arms. I may be totally wrong. If it goes to
appeal I may not be upheld and every case depends on whatever
circumstances. What I have said is with regard to the very special
circumstances of this trial and in the light of international tension around June 8th.
Women cleared as court rules nuclear arms illegal
by Gerard Seenan, Guardian (London)
And from CND:
Statement by CND following Trident Ploughshares acquittal - 21/10/99
By Jack O'Sullivan and Robert Verkaik, Independent (London) October 22
BBC October 21
http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_481000/481385.stm
Protester Ellen Moxley said the sheriff's actions were "not unexpected".
BBC October 21
From: International Justice Watch Discussion List 21 October
Home Page