Dr Diana Warner found guilty in court today as judge fails to tell “the whole truth” to her jury

Read Dr Warner’s post-conviction statement below.

If a jury find it difficult to come to a verdict because of conscience, what should they do? This was the question the jury at my trial asked the judge yesterday.

Judge Kearle replied to the jury that conscience was not a factor they can consider.

The fact is that if a jury wishes to acquit on conscience, they are able to do so and this principle is enshrined in law. For a judge to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

I believe that this trial is important, not because of me but because of the jury and the question they asked. I want to thank the jury for listening so carefully and for their honest question. This is more important than the guilty verdict today.

My trial related to a protest I carried out on 14 December 2021. I stopped a train going to Drax power station by stepping onto the line on land owned by Network Rail. The train was stationary for 30 seconds to one minute, before heading on.

The judge had told the jury they had two decisions to make:

1. Did I trespass on Network Rail land,

2. Did I cause an obstruction?

If the answer to both questions was yes, then they should find me guilty.

He also said that while he could not tell them what decision to make, there was no place for conscience in making their decision. These were the guidelines they must follow.

Despite these instructions, an hour after starting their discussions the jury asked this question: “If as a matter of conscience, they find it difficult to come to a verdict. What should they do?”

I believe that the jury showed they understood and agreed with me, through the question they asked and through their body language. I believe that they understood that I took the action to make the point that the government must review its position on Drax. The government must work towards getting the UK’s flexible energy in ways that are really sustainable.

Judge Kearle replied that they must answer the questions as he had told them. If they still couldn’t decide on conscience, then they should come back to him.

This trial is unusual because the jury specifically raised the question of conscience.

Juries respect judges as experts and as people of authority. They expect to follow the judge’s directions. They also expect judges to act morally and in the best interests of ordinary people. It comes as a shock when they realise that the law can work against their moral code and require them to reach a verdict that they consider is immoral. Government and courts are turning people who are calling out lack of action to combat climate change into criminals, instead of changing their own policies. The courts are being used to silence effective protest and act against people’s interest.

The jury have seen this happen in front of their eyes. It may be the first time that these twelve people have experienced anything like this. If it is the first time, it will come as a shock. I remember how I felt during my first trial in 2019, in front of a judge rather than a jury. The district judge had said: “if this was a trial of morals, you would be found not guilty. But this is a trial of law, and I find you guilty”. Today’s trial is important because it clearly shows that the courts are protecting wealthy people and corporations.

We all want to believe that courts are independent and ensure public safety. This is no longer the case and people need to know that. This young jury were told that they must not try the case on their conscience, by an establishment figure from a different class and generation. They may feel a deep sense of injustice and even betrayal. They should feel this. The courts are publicly funded, and it is becoming obvious in trials like this that they are no longer places of principle delivering justice and protecting the interests of ordinary people. This should concern us all.

Addendum to Dr Warner’s statement: Although not untrue, Judge Kearle’s response to the Jury is controversial as it is not “the whole truth”. In fact, the right of a jury to acquit a defendant on their conscience has been enshrined in UK law since 1670 and is known as “jury equity”. It is a right that is widely considered to be a vital constitutional safeguard against government tyranny, as it places the common sense and conscience of 12 ordinary citizens above potentially politicised and unjust laws.