The co-founder of Extinction Rebellion was found guilty of damaging £27,500 in damage after a four-year protest rights lawsuit.
In 2019, after a three-day trial, Gail Bradbrook was unanimously found guilty of criminal damage to the Department for Transport.
The judge once threatened anti-jury tampering in arguments over what the defendant could tell the jury.
She stated that the court had suppressed her, and that she would be sentenced the following month.
Two significant Extinction Rebellion mass demonstrations occurred in London in 2019, resulting in tens of millions of pounds worth of police expenses and the apprehension of thousands of individuals, as well as the cessation of operations in portions of the city.
Gail Bradbrook scaled a Department of Transport entrance canopy on the second day of the October protest.
“Start your investing journey with a gift! Claim your free Webull shares.”
She then shattered a substantial pane of reinforced security glass using implements. The specialised glass cost £27,500 to replace since it had to meet high security standards instantly.
Bradbrook said she targeted the DfT since HS2 caused so much environmental damage.
In her police interrogation, she said she “had permission from nature” to break the window to prevent crimes against humanity.
Obstacles and legal disputes
Her trial was postponed due to a political dispute surrounding the acquittal of demonstrators who had challenged the contentious Bristol statute of slave trader Edward Colston, which was further delayed by the pandemic.
As a result of that case, the Court of Appeal rendered a decision stating that violent demonstrations that inflict substantial harm could not invoke the right to protest as protected by human rights law to evade prosecution.
Ahead of her trial in July of this year, former scientist Gail Bradbrook, who was not represented by an attorney, stated that she intended to persuade the jury that her right to freedom of expression precluded her from being found guilty and that she was also attempting to avert the more serious crime of climate destruction.
“Jury manipulation”
She added that shattering the glass was legal and that government officials may have approved if they known her goals.
Despite the ruling by Judge Martin Edmunds KC that none of these arguments constituted valid legal defenses that a jury could consider, Dr. Bradbrook persisted in referencing them repeatedly in her testimony, contending that she was being suppressed otherwise.
The judge halted the hearing and issued an uncommon warning that, under seldom-used authority provisions designed to prevent criminals from swaying juries, he might be required to decide the case by himself.
“It is evident that Dr Bradbrook, by reference to her beliefs, considers either that the rules that apply to every other criminal defendant do not apply to her or that she is entitled to disregard them,” according to the judge’s ruling in July.
Dr. Bradbrook appeared to be arranging events to force me to withhold her jury testimony or commence contempt actions.
The Crown [Prosecution Service] has notified the defendants that in the event of an alleged attempt at jury tampering. They can apply to have the defendants removed from the jury and the trial restarted by the judge.
In addition to having her trial postponed until October, Gail Bradbrook was once more prohibited from orally presenting a 75-page essay detailing her convictions and rationales for shattering the glass.
Judge Edmunds did not suspend the trial this time when she began to explain her reasoning to the jury. Rather, he intervened fifteen times to prevent her from violating his ruling on admissible evidence.
She admitted, “I broke the window.” “My intention was to shatter the window.” This is not subject to dispute. I maintain my innocence as a criminal.
“I held the conviction that I possessed a legal defense.” “Those in positions of authority dislike it when individuals who have made the situation more difficult, such as myself, are acquitted.”
Since her indictment, the law had not changed, according to Judge Edmunds.
“Are you in agreement with my rulings?” he inquired. “The subject of this trial is criminal damage.” “It is not and never will be a forum for your general opinions, which you are free to express elsewhere.”
She responded, “As a mother, I possess a defense.”
“We operate on the basis of rules of relevance and inadmissibility,” according to the magistrate.
Bradbrook responded that “To quote Gandhi, ‘I have disregarded the order in obedience to the higher law of our being, the voice of conscience’.”
Signing by the jury outside of court
Advocacy ensued outside the courthouse throughout the three-day trial, with supporters affixed placards that informed jurors of their prerogative to acquit based on personal conviction.
A contempt of court proceeding is underway against one demonstrator for an incident at a different trial.
The date of Gail Bradbrook’s sentencing is December 18th. The judge stated that a suspended sentence was an alternative to the mandatory 18 months in prison.
An additional conviction has been made regarding the XR founder for breaking a bank window. This case was previously dismissed as a less serious offense.
A separate trial earlier this week resulted in the acquittals of eight environmental demonstrators who were charged with tampering with the Treasury through the application of simulated blood.
Company insolvencies rise 10% year, causing financial suffering.
