22nd May 2007

Jury unanimously declares B52 Two 'Not Guilty'

Deputy Mayor Kevin Cranston, who had visited them in Gloucester prison when they were on remand, comments on the momentous decision. 

A jury at Bristol Crown Court this afternoon declared Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch, the two Oxford peace activists (known as the 'B52 Two') not guilty. They had been accused of conspiring to cause criminal damage at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on 18 March 2003 when they tried to prevent B52 bombers from bombing Iraq. The bombing of Iraq starts on 20 March 2003.

Stroud Deputy Mayor Kevin Cranston, Green party councillor and retired Lieutenant Colonel, who provided written evidence for Philip Pritchard and visited them both while they were held on remand in Gloucester prison in 2003, said "This is brilliant news confirming the whole basis for this war was illegal. The Court has shown they were entirely justified in their brave actions to try and prevent an unprovoked war."

Kevin Cranston added: "The Green party was the only main party to oppose this illegal, immoral and counterproductive war from the start. Sadly our worst fears have materialised: many thousands killed, 3.7 million Iraqis refugees, a whole country's infrastructure destroyed, Britain's reputation for fair play in tatters and rapid growth in terrorism."

Philip Booth, a Stroud District councillor, said: "This Court decision is most welcomed. This is a major step on the path to prosecuting Tony Blair for war crimes. The war, as the Green party have said all along was illegal. We now must withdraw our troops from Iraq, declare we will not participate in any attack against Iran and pursue a foreign policy independent of the US administration."

Oxford Green Group Leader Cllr Craig Simmons said: "Greens everywhere are literally jumping for joy at this unanimous verdict. Toby and Phil are national heroes - they have stood up against a Government hell-bent on death and destruction and won."

Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall also welcomed the news: "Non violent direct action can be an effective tool for dealing with inbalances of power when fighting governments, companies and the wealthy elites who wield huge power. Peaceful direct action can slow, stop and reverse the wheels of the juggernaut. The B52 pair are to be congratulated - we can fight this illegal and immoral war in many ways. Their courageous actions have shown the vital and effective role NVDA can play."

Philip Pritchard is 36 years old, and a self employed carpenter and father. Toby Olditch is 38 years old, and a self employed builder. They both live in Oxford. This was the second trial for the alleged offence; the first in October 2006 ended in a hung jury. There are two other similar cases also awaiting re-trial at Bristol crown court, which also had hung juries. If convicted the two would have faced a possible ten year sentence.

See previous Glos Green party news release here

More re B52 two here

The facts – the action: from the B52 Two website:

Prior to their action at RAF Fairford, Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard petitioned those in authority and demonstrated against the war on Iraq. On the night of 18 March 2003, they were detained inside the perimeter fence approaching a B52 bomber. They carried with them tools to damage the planes, nuts and bolts to jam the aircrafts engines, pictures of ordinary Iraqi civilians and paint symbolizing blood and oil. They also carried warning signs for attaching to any damaged planes which would help alert aircrew to their action.
The two men acted nonviolently in a way which would not result in harm to anyone, including the military personnel at Fairford. They intended to stay with the planes and tell the operators what they'd done; and in consequence the most meticulous examination, repair and checking processes would have been carried out on the planes. They had hoped to inflict sufficient damage to the aircraft to prevent the bombing.

Legal defence
The two activists were open about their intention to disable the bombers. They do not contest that they intended to do damage to the bombers. The jury must consider whether the prosecution have proved that the intended action of the accused was not justified in law.

The justification offered by the activists is: firstly, they were acting to protect property; and secondly, the use of force is allowed in law to prevent a crime. The first of these defences is derived from Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which states that:

    "A person charged... shall be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse if he damaged or threatened to damage the property in question in order to protect property belonging to himself or another... and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed
    (i) that the property... was in immediate need of protection; and
    (ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
    For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held. "

The two activists say that they had a lawful excuse in seeking to protect property in Iraq; there was an immediate need to act, and in the circumstances it was reasonable. They maintain what that they agreed to do was only such damage as was necessary to prevent the crime they believed was about to be committed – no more; and that such damage as they agreed to commit was reasonable (objectively reasonable), in the light of the circumstances they believed them to be.

The second defence is found in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 : “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime”. Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch say they acted to prevent a war crime, and in the circumstances it was reasonable. Over time the international community has established rules of war, and one of these is to protect the lives and property of civilians. As the judge said in the first trial, the jury should regard as a war crime ‘the use, to achieve a military purpose, of weapons with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective.’ However, the jury doesn’t need to decide whether war crimes were, in fact, committed. What they have to consider is whether the accused believed that war crimes would be committed. The prosecution accepted this at the first trial.

The question of the legality of the war as a whole cannot be presented as a defence to the court. Again, it is the honestly held belief of the two men, that there would be specific crimes committed if the bombing took place, which is relevant.

War crimes in Iraq
The specific war crimes which Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard believed would be committed if war happened concern indiscriminate bombing, the use of cluster bombs, and weapons containing depleted uranium (DU), and the disproportionate harm civilians would suffer from them, and the possible use of experimental weapons.

The number of civilian casualties of the Iraq war, as of 3 May 2007, is estimated at between 62,770 and 68,796 based on media reports from recognised sources[1]. A study published in the Lancet in October 2006 put the figure at over 650,000. For comparison, military casualties are lower. US military casualties to date number 3,355 [2]; other coalition troop casualties total 272 including 147 British military casualties[3] . Casualties among Iraqi security forces are estimated at 6,555 [3]. The financial cost of the war in Iraq to date (May 2007) to the US taxpayer, is said to be approximately $385 billion[4].

Cluster bombs, DU weapons
Cluster bombs contain approximately 200 submunitions ('bomblets'). These typically spread over an area of about 100 metres by 200 metres. They are designed to explode on impact, some to penetrate armour and buildings, some to fragment and project a hail of shrapnel in all directions. All are designed to kill. Some do so immediately, and some explode on impact but cause no casualties. Others, between 5 and 20% of all the small bombs, fail to explode on impact and remain where they land. They're then effectively landmines which can kill and maim for decades afterwards.

After a war is over civilians are the people most likely to be hurt by these unexploded cluster bombs. Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions it is a war crime to use weapons like this, which will cause disproportionate civilian casualties and continue to harm people after the war is over. For example, during the first Gulf War about 50,000 of the United States cluster bombs were dropped, releasing over 13,000,000 small bombs. The military gives a very conservative estimate that 5% of these bombs would fail to explode on impact, meaning there would be 650,000 small unexploded bombs lying around. Every one of these, unless disposed of properly, would remain able to kill or maim if stepped on or touched.

There are similar concerns about the use of depleted uranium in munitions. This gives 'bunker busting' bombs their penetrating ability, but in the process scatters radioactive uranium dust and fragments which can be carried on the wind for miles around, contaminating the soil, water, crops and livestock, and being ingested and inhaled by people. The consequences of this include: genetic mutations, congenital defects, and increased incidence of cancers. The Gulf War Veterans Association says a number of UK and US veterans have been found to have DU in their urine almost a decade after the first Gulf Conflict, and that the its presence increases the risk of cancers, disruption of reproductive hormones, and lowered neuro-cognitive performance. A recently published study by the University of Southern Maine shows that inhaled DU dust causes widespread damage to DNA in lung tissue, which could lead to lung cancer.

References: 1- Iraq Body Count: (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/); 2- The Randolph Bourne Institute: (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/); 3- Iraq Coalition Casualty Count: (http://www.icasualties.org); 4- Steve Stoft, economist: (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html).