PORTLAND councillor Giovanna Lewis has been sent to prison for defying a judge's ban on referring to the climate crisis during a trial as her motivation for taking part in an Insulate Britain protest.
As reported cllr Lewis has been on trial at an Inner London Crown Court charged with causing a public nuisance for taking part in a protest in Bishopsgate in October 2021.
She, along with co-defendant Amy Pritchard, 38, represented themselves during the trial and were banned by Judge Silas Reid from using their concerns about fuel poverty or the environment in their own defence.
But both defendants breached the order.
During her closing address on Monday cllr Lewis told the court: “I continue to be astonished that today in a British court, a judge can or would even want to criminalise the mention of the words fuel poverty or climate crisis.
"Every year thousands of UK citizens die of fuel poverty and thousands die in the world of climate change. In the future this will be millions.
"Government policies are responsible and the judiciary should prevent this instead of criminalising ordinary people trying to save lives and acting in self-defence.”
Nobody wants to go to prison but in order to stand up for what's right, for our civil liberties in court, it's the price that we have to pay - Giovanna Lewis
Speaking to the Echo yesterday, Giovanna Lewis said that Judge Reid had ordered the jury to leave the courtroom when she began speaking about the climate emergency. Her words were met by applause from supporters in the public gallery.
Amy Pritchard, who also broke the restriction, said: "The climate crisis and fuel poverty are killing people now.
“I will not be prevented from saying this to a jury. When our so-called leaders are failing us, ordinary people have to step up.”
As reported, the jury failed to reach a majority verdict yesterday. Prosecutors have indicated that they may seek a retrial.
In a separate hearing this afternoon, both women admitted being in contempt of court and were sentenced to seven weeks’ imprisonment, of which they will serve half.
Judge Reid told the defendants they had sought to “set themselves above the law” by mentioning aspects of their motivation in carrying out the October protest that were not relevant to jury deliberations.
He said the defendants had "clear disdain" for the judicial process.
He added: “Your contempts are very serious as they represent complete contempt for the court and court process.
"Most importantly though, in my mind, is the need of the court to protect its process. Not out of any sense of pride or importance, but because the rule of law is vital.
“No side has the advantage of the court determining that their cause is just, or that the law should be bent or broken because of any personal views a judge may or may not have.
“You each decided that rather than show respect for the court process you would set yourselves up as individual arbiters of what is fair and proper. That is real contempt.”
The defendants had pleaded 'not guilty' to the public nuisance charge, which meant the case was heard before a jury in a Crown Court instead of a summary trial at a magistrates’ court.
Asked by the judge whether they wished him to take anything into consideration in sentencing, Giovanna Lewis said: "Your ruling - that why we did this was completely irrelevant - was quashing the human spirit and the heart.
"You can only do that so much, but it has to speak, and that is the place I spoke from.
"Speaking from the heart and not allowing my soul to be repressed in the way that your rulings were doing.”
Ms Pritchard said the world is “staring total eco-system collapse in the face” and criticised “those in power” for failing to act.
Addressing the judge directly, she said: “I include you in that and I wonder if people are too comfortable to feel the urgency.”
Several supporters watching proceedings from the public gallery were warned not to disrupt proceedings by the judge before applauding at the end of the hearing.
Speaking to the PA news agency outside court ahead of the hearing, cllr Lewis branded the ruling “unbelievable” and an attack on civil liberties.
But she added that she had “committed to going to prison” when she broke the law and did not want to act like a “martyr”.
She said: “Nobody wants to go to prison but in order to stand up for what’s right, for our civil liberties in court, it’s the price that we have to pay.”
Ms Pritchard said: “I feel that my responsibility here is not to the judge and to this court, my responsibility is much wider.
"It is to young people who are rightly worried about their futures, and my responsibilities to our global families who are already suffering and dying; to the world’s ecosystems and also to future generations.”
She added that she had interpreted the hung jury as a “promising sign” that some sections of the public may be sympathetic to Insulate Britain’s cause.
“I think it’s a sign that people are really concerned about the issues that we’re raising, and perhaps also concerned that we’re being blocked from talking about them in court,” she said.
“History has shown that the law is not always in line with justice, and I think this is another example of that.
“This situation is completely unprecedented. The legal system is not fit for purpose to deal with it and to deal with people trying to intervene.”
In a statement this evening, an Insulate Britain spokesperson said: "In 2021 we demanded that the government of the time take a no-brainer first step to end fuel poverty in the UK and lower the UK’s carbon emissions by committing to and fully funding a national home insulation and retrofit programme.
"Lowering carbon emissions is something the UK Government has committed to do. They have failed to act with anything like the scale and urgency that is required.
"Let us be clear. In 2023, you are either on the side of protecting lives, or you are not.
"It takes courage to stand in a courtroom and defy a judge’s ruling... It takes courage to be on a jury and hold onto your morals."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article