Defence of Angie Zelter

Trial on 12 Oct 2017 for blockade of Coulport on 11 July 2017 at Dumbarton JP Court.

Defence of Angie Zelter

Witness Box

Identity and Context

I am Angie Zelter, 66 years of age and at present resident at 6 Church St, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1AG.

I am a founder of Trident Ploughshares which started almost 20 years ago and is dedicated to the nonviolent and accountable disarmament of the UK’s nuclear weapons and which received the Right Livelihood Award (also known as the alternative Nobel Prize) in 2001. TP is founded on international humanitarian law and our belief that the 100 kiloton nuclear weapons on the Trident system are illegal and criminal under international law. Indeed Sheriff Gimlett in 1999 found me and my 2 co-defendants not guilty of criminal damage after we disarmed an essential link in the Trident system on ‘Maytime’ in Loch Goil and much of my defence was based on international law.¹ I wrote a book called ‘Trident on Trial’ which I would like to hand in as evidence as it includes details of the international law defence that enabled my acquittal and explains why I continue to engage in nonviolent resistance and thus speaks to my state of mind.²

Hand in Exhibit 1 – Trident on Trial book

I was also one of the founders and co-ordinators of the Faslane Year of Blockades from 2006-7 and lived in the area during the year. I can attest to the fact that the civil resistance was conducted in a peaceful and nonviolent manner throughout the year. I would like to hand in as evidence a book I edited called ‘Faslane 365’ as it contains relevant chapters on our nonviolence training (Chapter 5), police liaison (Chapter 9) and work in the local community to limit the impact on locals (Chapter 8).³

Hand in Exhibit 2 – Faslane 365 book

I have always worked constructively for many years with the public and police in ensuring peaceful and effective nonviolent resistance to internationally recognised ‘crimes against the peace’⁴ – which is what the Trident nuclear weapon system is.

On July 7^th this year, 120 nations voted for a draft treaty to ban all nuclear weapons after a final UN conference.⁵ The UK, despite numerous protestations over many decades that it would support multi-lateral nuclear disarmament processes, refused to attend and the present government has said it will never sign such a Treaty.⁶

Please take note that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given this year to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in recognition of the group’s work “to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons”. The choice amounted to a reprimand to the world’s nine nuclear-armed powers, all of whom boycotted the negotiations for the treaty and are busy modernising their systems.

The date for the set-up of our Trident Ploughshares Peace and Disarmament Camp was July 7^th 2017 because we knew that this Treaty would get the overwhelming support of the vast majority of States. This was because all these nations had previously expressed feeling very threatened by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increasing threats to use nuclear weapons, as any use would impact the whole planet, and every nation, leading to a nuclear winter and famine as well as numerous deaths, injuries and long lasting genetic damage. This was the context for holding our nonviolent protest camp at Coulport – the place where the UK stores its nuclear warheads – against the will of the majority of Scottish people.

Beliefs and Knowledge – State of Mind

I believe that the nuclear weapons that the UK deploys are illegal and criminal under national and international laws and have done everything in my power to bring this to the attention of the police⁷, law courts and the Government by reporting the crime at numerous police stations, and lobbying and writing and signing numerous petitions. All to little effect. There is a democratic deficit in our society.

Let me give one of the more recent examples of how I have tried to get the courts to deal with the criminality of Trident. Over 2 years ago I initiated, with others, a public interest case against Trident⁸ and sent a draft indictment against the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon for conspiring to commit a war crime – which is what Trident is.

Over 400 people signed on as co-prosecutors, approached their local magistrates courts, wrote to the Attorney General for permission to proceed and then engaged in lengthy communications sending in a summary of our evidence and a draft indictment as requested. Although we were promised speedy responses several times, the latest one being a promise to respond at length by the end of September, I have just received yet another delaying email saying we will receive their detailed response as soon as practicable. If this was a conspiracy to commit a crime from the usual terrorist suspects I am sure there would not have been a 2 year delay.

The delay appears to be political and it is obviously proving difficult for the Attorney-General’s Office to actually justify its likely refusal of consent to proceed. It appears that the Government is getting away with breaking the most serious of all laws while we are being put on trial for trying to prevent criminal activities when all other methods have failed.

On Tuesday 11^th July I joined with others to exercise our freedom of expression, which is our right. We lawfully protested on a military road that is used by nuclear convoys and by personnel implicated in the storage, maintenance and deployment of nuclear warheads.

My intention was to protest about the continuing illegality of a conspiracy to use 100 kiloton nuclear warheads – in other words a conspiracy to commit a war crime. I was and still am convinced by the statement made by His Excellency Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui – the presiding judge at the International Court of Justice during the famous 1996 Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons.

Hand in Exhibit 3 – Trident and International Law book see page 90

His statement made in 2011⁹ included the following:-

‘ I would like to stress that the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of July 8, 1996, did not have at its disposal adequate elements of fact to permit concluding with certainty whether a specific nuclear weapon system would be contrary to the principles and rules of the law applicable in armed conflict. The Court was asked to rule on a general question of use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. If the Court had been asked to rule on the legality of a specific nuclear weapons system or doctrine the conclusion we arrived at might well have been much clearer.

I have been asked to give a personal opinion on the legality of a nuclear weapons system that deploys over 100 nuclear warheads with an approximate yield of 100 kt per warhead. Bearing in mind that warheads of this size constitute around eight times the explosive power of the bomb that flattened Hiroshima in 1945 and killed over 100,000 civilians, it follows that the use of even a single such warhead in any circumstance, whether a first or second use and whether intended to be targeted against civilian populations or military objectives, would inevitably violate the prohibitions on the infliction of unnecessary suffering and indiscriminate harm as well as the rule of proportionality including with respect to the environment. In my opinion, such a system deployed and ready for action would be unlawful.

In accordance with evidence heard by the Court, it is clear that an explosion caused by the detonation of just one 100 kt warhead would release powerful and prolonged ionising radiation, which could not be contained in space or time, and which would harmfully affect civilians as well as combatants, neutral as well as belligerent states, and future generations as well as people targeted in the present time. In view of these extraordinarily powerful characteristics and effects, any use of such a warhead would contravene international and humanitarian laws and precepts. In other words, even in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake, the use of a 100 kt nuclear warhead—regardless of whether it was targeted to land accurately on or above a military target—would always fail the tests of controllability, discrimination, civilian immunity, and neutral rights and would thus be unlawful.

In my opinion, any state that aids and abets another country, in the deployment and maintenance of nuclear warheads of 100 kt or comparable explosive power would also be acting unlawfully. ‘

I believe that when citizens of a country know that their government and military are engaged in activities that they know are criminal they need to act. In this case I have acted time and again over many years, doing everything from writing letters to my MP, PM, Defence Minister and to the press, writing articles and books for the general public, bringing the matter to the attention of the police and to the courts and also engaging in nonviolent and accountable direct action to disrupt and impede the nuclear war machine.

So far this has not resulted in the UK dismantling all of its nuclear weapons. However, partly because of our actions in keeping the issue of nuclear weapons in the public eye, our society is changing and in Scotland there is at least a government committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

However, the time is short, nuclear sabres are rattling with a horrifying screech from the ego-centric, immoral and inhumane leaders of both North Korea and the USA.

In contrast, the possibility of abolition is enshrined in the Nuclear Ban Treaty¹⁰ and I felt the need to protest in the days after the historic 7^th July decision by 120 nations. I knew at the time of my action that on 20^th September this Treaty would be opened for signature to all States at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. I hoped that my actions and those of other TP activists would help Scotland and the rest of the UK to back the Treaty and draw us back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. On 20^th September the requisite number of 50 countries signed the Treaty and the Treaty will soon come into force and more countries are signing up every day.

Hand in Exhibit 4 – Draft Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

I would now like to submit evidence of my nonviolence and accountability by bringing to your attention the nonviolent guidelines of Trident Ploughshares that are always part of our actions and were strictly adhered to on the 11^th July.

Hand in Exhibit 5 – TP Nonviolence Guidelines

Our guidelines read:-

‘I will not engage in physical violence or verbal abuse toward any individual and will carry no weapons.

I will not bring or use any alcohol or drugs other than for medical purposes.

I will respect all the various agreements concerning the actions.

I will act safely at all times and act responsibly to ensure that no harm comes to any living being including myself.

We will clear blockades to allow emergency vehicles (not police) in or out of a site and resume any blockades afterwards.’

The police know of our commitment to nonviolence and I will bring witnesses to prove that I acted at all times in accordance with them.

Concerns

I would also like to tell you that I was and still am seriously alarmed and disturbed as well as frightened by the nuclear convoys conveying dangerous nuclear warheads up and down public highways, by the continual deployment of Trident submarines in the oceans around our precious planet, and by the undermining of the rule of international humanitarian law. I believe that the UK is encouraging terrorism by relying on weapons of mass destruction that if ever used by design or accident would kill and injure so many innocent civilians and destroy so much of our precious life-supporting environment.

My own behaviour on 11^th July did not cause any alarm or fear. The people that live near by, the police and the workers have experienced very many demonstrations and protests, blockades and vigils over many decades now. Some of these are very small consisting of from 1 to 10 protesters and some are very large with several thousand people engaged in shutting down the bases for a day at a time. This is part of our right to protest and many judges have admitted as did Lord Prosser, Kirkwood and Penrose in 2000, that ‘Demonstration and protest and civil disobedience have a long and indeed proud history …… helping to re-inforce and publicise the point they are making’.¹¹

On 11^th July during my protest with others we had organised ourselves to ensure the health and safety of other road users. We let one car through as we set up in our lock-ons and then placed traffic cones and people with banners in front and behind us. These people were ready to talk calmly to anyone turning up. In fact no other cars came near us except for police officers and their vehicles. 5 of us locked onto tubes and lay in the road.

Please remember that this is a privately owned MoD road that is often closed without warning to the public whenever a nuclear convoy or other military activity uses the road. Last year in 2016 there were at least 11 road closures for the convoy movements. And this year there have been 3 more convoys using this road which has been closed to the public without prior warning.¹² Please also remember that there is an alternative public highway that leads to the Coulport base.

Hand in Exhibit 6 – Map of the roads leading to Coulport

When Police Inspector Quinn asked us to desist and said if we did not we would be arrested I calmly explained to the police why I was there, why I thought nuclear weapons are illegal and why the police should be dealing with these criminal acts. I said the following:-

‘I would like you to stop the breach of the peace that Trident is creating at the moment…we have been very reasonable responsible citizens trying to prevent mass destruction. You are police officers and you should be helping us obey the law. If you get rid of Trident and stop the people going into work today, even for just one day, we will release………

I just want to remind you as police officers that there have been examples around the world when the police have agreed with the protesters and have refused to do their duty as their superiors tell them, you could as a group go and have a meeting and decide that actually in this case, given that there is a ban treaty now on the table, and it is very clear that Trident is illegal, that you are unfortunately unwilling to do your duty in this case – that there is a higher law – of trying to get rid of Trident – and so you won’t arrest us – and there are other police officers who can come and do it – you can do that as a matter of conscience …….

I just wanted to remind you of the Geneva Conventions Act and the Genocide Act and the International Criminal Court Act – they are all 3 British laws that apply in Scotland and I just wanted to remind you of that so you are aware of it ……..

thank you very much – we appreciate that you are in a difficult position but I hope that after this event you will have a discussion in the police about trying to sincerely uphold the law ….

here in Scotland at this particular time you have an amazing chance to help the whole process of disarmament and as a police force in Scotland you have a much better chance of being able to do that than the police force does in England or in Wales where I now live so I hope you can have a discussion about it – we would really appreciate it.‘

After the cutting team cut me out of my lock-on I got up and walked calmly to the police vehicle. I did not resist arrest in any way.

The whole protest was calm, respectful and yet was a powerful statement against the UK’s nuclear weapons system.

It is pertinent to note here that these kinds of actions will become increasingly common as our present government is still refusing to abide by Article 6 of the Non Proliferation Treaty of 1968 where a commitment was made ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament’. 50 years later we can see how the breaching of this international Treaty has led to the proliferation of nuclear weapons to 9 countries with an estimated 16,300 nuclear weapons.¹³ And, as reported in Hansard, the current Secretary of State for Defence, Sir Michael Fallon, on 10^th July this year shamefully said ‘The UK will never sign, ratify or become a party to the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons’.¹⁴

I hope this has clearly explained the context of my action, what I did and my state of mind and why I felt I had to take this minimal action to try to prevent a nuclear catastrophe.

Exhibits

Exhibit No 1 – ‘Trident on Trial – the case for peoples’ disarmament’ by Angie Zelter. Luath Press 2001. ISBN – 1-84282-004-4

Exhibit No 2 – Faslane 365 – a year of anti-nuclear blockades’ edited by Angie Zelter. Luath Press 2008. ISBN – 1-906307-61-X

Exhibit No 3 – ‘Trident and International Law – Scotland’s Obligations’ edited by Rebecca Johnson and Angie Zelter. Luath Press, 2011. ISBN – 978-1-906817-24-4. Pages 90-91.

Exhibit No 4 – Draft Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – A /CONF.229/2017/L.3/Rev.1

Exhibit No 5 – TP Nonviolence Guidelines

Exhibit No 6 – Map of roads leading to Coulport.

 

Legal Argument

In Smith v. Donnelly, Lords Coulsfield, Osborne and Caplan state that ‘breach of the peace required conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community’. They explain that ‘what was required was conduct which presented as genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person’.

As I explained, from the witness box:-

• The context was one of heightened fear of a nuclear exchange between the USA and North Korea with the UK refusing to support the multi-lateral nuclear ban treaty that had just been supported by 122 nations at the U.N.
• The action took place on an MoD road where locals are used to being stopped by routine road closures when nuclear convoys are using the road. It is also a place where some anti-nuclear demonstrations and blockades also take place but not so regularly as convoys.
• Reasonable, ordinary, local persons know that it is an MoD road that is often closed and are therefore used to being delayed and would certainly not have been alarmed or disturbed by yet another closure. They are also aware that there is an alternative route via another road that leads into Coulport.
• Many locals who hate living near a nuclear base find the closures and delays for the long nuclear weapon convoys on the roads around Faslane and Coulport much more alarming and disturbing than peace protesters who might block a road for a few hours in order to exercise their right to freedom of expression.

Smith and Donnelly was about an action in 1999 at Faslane and I submit that the world has changed in many ways during the last 18 years. There is much more public awareness of the terrible harm that nuclear weapons cause to people and environment whether or not they are actually used in a war. We are much more conscious of the dangers of a nuclear exchange when we see the macho posturing of leaders of countries with nuclear weapons.

It is now quite clear that hundreds of thousands of ‘ordinary’ people in Scotland, feel alarmed and disturbed by weapons of mass destruction being transported up and down England and Scotland between Burghfield and Coulport, and being deployed every day and night on Trident submarines which could be used to kill millions of innocent people. I refer you to the testimony of David Mackenzie. I believe that if the democratic wishes of the majority of people in Scotland were considered then there would be no nuclear weapons in Scotland and Scotland would sign the Nuclear Ban Treaty. This would then end our fear and alarm and we would be able to stop protesting in Scotland.

As I submitted in evidence, I was living in the area during the Faslane 365 year of blockades at Faslane and Coulport which was held from October 2006 to October 2007. There was a blockade every other day throughout that year and I met many local people who supported our protests as well as some who did not. But there was never any question of us seriously alarming the public. We made sure that the blockades did not interrupt the school buses during exam times and there were always other roads that the public could use. When the numbers of protesters was large enough the base closed for the day and then there were no arrests at all. And the protests had the results we peacefully worked for – they helped bring to power a Scottish Government that is committed to banning all nuclear weapons from Scotland.¹

As I explained from the witness box and as was corroborated by Gillian Lawrence we had supporters who were ready to talk to any drivers of vehicles wanting to pass and to explain why we were there and to point out alternative routes. They were ready to keep the peace and keep everything calm. I also told you of our nonviolence guidelines that explain how we would move for emergency vehicles. The witnesses Barbara Maver, David Mackenzie and Janet Fenton also corroborated our peacefulness.

I therefore submit that we acted in a reasonable, safe, courteous and responsible manner in our attempts to protest against nuclear weapons of mass destruction that we believe to be contrary to the law. I furthermore submit that I was peacefully engaged in exercising my freedom of expression.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a relevant defence that I wish to put forward as I consider that my action was an expression of my opinion that Trident nuclear weapons are unlawful and criminal and that our government is acting out-with the law.

Basically,my argument is that since the rule of of law is a fundamental principle of a democratic society, interference by a State with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression cannot be ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for the purposes of Article 10(2) unless it is shown to be consistent with the State’s obligations under international as well as national law. And it cannot be reasonable to conclude that interference by a public authority which protects, facilitates or otherwise supports illegal State activity is ‘necessary in a democratic society’. Support for this view is arguably found in Nachova and others v Bulgaria (2006) 42 EHRR 43, para 118 and also McKerr v UKN(2002) 34 EHRR 20, para 114, where the European Court held that ‘a prompt and effective response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force is essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing the appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts’.

The protection of Article 10 extends to protesters whose acts obstruct the activity which is the object of their protest. For instance, in the grouse shoot protest in Steel and others v UK (1999) 28 EHRR 603 the Court held that although the protests had taken the form of physically impeding the activities of which the applicants disapproved, they constituted expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article 10(1).

The obstruction of unlawful activity such as the working of Coulport base that has 100kt nuclear warheads is legitimate as my freedom of expression. The State therefore has to justify its interference with my right to freedom of expression. To do this the Crown has to prove that Trident warheads are compatible with international law and this it has not done.

Since the ICJ’s advisory opinion makes it clear that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is unlawful save possibly in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of a State is at stake, it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to show that UK defence policy is covered by the (possible) in extremis saving clause. There is a strong presumption of illegality which demands convincing rebuttal by the State. This is because the Secretary of State for Defence indicated in evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee in March 2002 that the Government is prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack with chemical or biological weapons against British troops in the field and even pre-emptively – in other words outside the in extremis context.²

I submit that it would be contrary to justice to find us guilty of breach of the peace when we have done all we can to stop the breach of the peace that these nuclear bases and the nuclear convoys represent. We have and continue to do all that we can to ask that the police and courts deal with the crime of Trident and only engage in civil resistance as a last resort because the legal system is refusing to bring the authorities to court to answer the extremely serious crime of conspiracy to commit war crimes.

I ask that you act as an impartial representative of our legal system in the full understanding of the context of our action and our responsible behaviour and find us not guilty.