Judge Bathurst-Norman: the full summing-up

LEWES CROWN COURTT 20097131/7129/7128/7126/7124/7122/7120
(SITTING AT HOVE)The Law Courts,
Lansdowne Road, Hove.
Sussex.BN3 3BN.
28th & 29th June 2010
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN
(Sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge)
R E G I N A
- v -
ORNELLA SAIBENE, ROBERT NICHOLLS, THOMAS WOODHEAD, CHRISTOPHER
OSMOND, HARVEY TADMAN, ELIJAH SMITH and SIMON LEVIN

(Transcribed from DARTS by Marten Walsh Cherer, 1st Floor Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court Chancery Lane, London WC"A 1HP. Tel No: 02070672900)

MR. S. SHAY and MR. D. SULLIVAN appeared on behalf of the Prosecution
MR. C. BLAXLAND QC and MISS R. HILL appeared on behalf of the Defendant SAIBENE
MISS A. BAILEY appeared on behalf of the Defendant NICHOLLS
MR. P. TROOP appeared on behalf of the Defendant WOODHEAD
MR. D. DIAS and MISS P. ROSE appeared on behalf of the Defendant OSMOND
MR. S. POWLES appeared on behalf of the Defendant TADMAN
MR.HUSEYIN appeared on behalf of the Defendant SMITH
MISS B. CAMPBELL appeared on behalf of the Defendant LEVIN

28th June 2010
SUMMING UP
JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:Ladies and gentlemen, I have two jobs at this stage. My first job is to tell you what the law is.

What I say about that you must accept from me and apply when you come to decide the facts. My second job is to give you a
short summary of the evidence.Now obviously I don't go
through every word, or we would be here for another
three-and-a-half weeks, but in doing that I try to give you a
bird's-eye view, and if I leave out something that seems to
you to be important, you must take that matter into account,
because you decide the facts and I don't.

Equally, if I comment on this or that aspect of the case,
if the comment helps you, take it into account; if the comment
doesn't then ignore it all together.

The first thing I want to say to you about the case,
and it applies to each defendant: the prosecution bring the
case against these defendants, and before you can find any one
of them guilty the prosecution must prove the case against
that defendant.In order to do that the prosecution must
satisfy you so that you are sure of guilt, or put another way,
but it means exactly the same thing, they must prove the case
beyond all reasonable doubt.

Now there are seven defendants.You consider each
defendant separately.They don't necessarily have to stand or
fall together.As you can see from the indictment, they are
all charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage.So
what is a conspiracy?A conspiracy is basically an agreement.
It is defined in this way: if a person agrees with any other
person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued
which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with
their intentions, will necessarily amount to or involve the
commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the
parties to the agreement, then that person is guilty of
conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

A number of matters follow from this definition.For
there to be a conspiracy, at least two people must be involved
in the agreement; you can't agree with yourself.Once you are
satisfied so that you are sure that there was an agreement you
have to decide who were the parties to that agreement.You
decide that by looking at the evidence against each defendant
in turn and deciding from that evidence whether that defendant
was party to an agreement.Once by other evidence you find a
defendant was a party to the agreement then whatever another
party to the agreement does or says in pursuance of the
agreement is evidence in the case of each defendant who was a
party to that agreement.

Anything said later to the police or anyone else about a
defendant is only evidence in the cases of the defendant who
is speaking, as the other defendants are not present and so
can't agree or disagree with what is said.And once a
defendant gives evidence, that evidence is evidence in the
case as a whole, be it for or against any other defendant.

The agreement does not have to be written down or formally
agreed in any way.Its existence can be inferred from the
actions of the participants.In the execution of an agreement
the various parties to it may play different roles.Some may
play an active role, others may stand by ready to help if
needed, or may only intend to encourage and in fact encourage
those playing an active role.

I have been careful to use the word "agreement", because
an agreement does not become a conspiracy unless its objective
is to commit a criminal offence, in this case the offence of
criminal damage.That is a matter for you to decide.So how
is criminal damage defined?It is an offence for a person
without lawful excuse to destroy or damage any property
belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage that
property.

So what is meant by "lawful excuse"?It is defined in
this way:a person has a lawful excuse if he destroys or
damages property in order to protect property belonging to
another and at the time of the act alleged he honestly
believed that the property was in immediate need of protection
and that the means of protection which he adopted were
reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances.

In this case a purpose of the defendants in damaging
MBM's property has to be to prevent the destruction by the
Israeli Air Force of property in Gaza.I want to stress the
word "a" purpose; it doesn't have to be the sole purpose.
Their purposes may not necessarily be exclusive.Also, it is
the property that is in immediate need of protection not your
actions to defend the property that has to be immediate, and
the property itself has to be in immediate need of protection.

Now the question of anyone's honest belief in these
circumstances is a subjective matter.It is not what you or I
would believe, it is what each of the defendants believed.In
this case you may think that no one doubts the honesty of
these defendants' belief.The same applies to the question of
whether the means were reasonable; that too in this instance
is a subjective test.If it is possible that a defendant
honestly believed that the means he or she used were
reasonable then that is sufficient to establish that the means
so used were reasonable, again, no matter what you or I may
think.

Now the second matter of law relied upon by the
defendants is that by law a person is entitled to use such
force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention
of crime.In this instance the test of reasonableness is an
objective test.

And finally, the defendants raise the defence of
necessity.That means the defendant whose case you are
considering must have been acting reasonably and
proportionately to avoid a threat of death or serious injury
to others.Again, that is an objective test, and it involves
furthermore two questions: was the defendant in question
impelled to act as he did as a result of what he honestly
believed the situation to be, and he had good cause to fear
that otherwise death or serious injury would result?That
part of it, of course, is subjective.

Secondly, if that is possible, is it possible that a
person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same
characteristics as the defendant whose case you are
considering, would have responded in the same way?If the
answer to both question is "yes" then the defence of necessity
is made out.

Now it is not a prerequisite to the success of any of
those defendants that the defendants had to succeed in their
endeavours.When considering these defendants, which are all
based on the same factual premise, if you think it possible in
relation to whichever defendant's case you are considering
that the Crown have not satisfied you so that you are sure
that that defendant did not have a lawful excuse, or, and I
stress the word "or" (they don't have to succeed on all three
defences) was not using reasonable force in an attempt to
prevent crime, or was not acting out of necessity, then your
verdict in relation to that defendant will be one of not
guilty, for at all times the burden of proving the case and
therefore disproving any defence which is raised rests upon
the Crown to satisfy you so that you are sure that the defence
raised is untrue.

So we come to the steps to your verdict.In reaching
your verdicts there are a number of questions you need to ask
yourselves, and those are the questions before you on that
questionnaire.Is it possible that (a), and again I stress
the word "a" purpose of the defendant in damaging (I am going
to shorten it to MBM's property) was to protect property in
Gaza from damage and destruction by the Israeli Military?If
so, is it possible that the defendant honestly believed that
that property was in need of immediate protection, and again,
I stress it is the property that has to be in need of
immediate protection.If so, is it possible that the
defendant honestly believed that MBM were supplying the
Israeli Air Force, whether directly or indirectly, with
component parts for the F16 aircraft?If so, is it possible
that the defendant honestly believed that it was reasonable in
the circumstances to damage MBM's property in order to protect
property in Gaza?And again, I have already stressed it, it
is the property, so far as question 2 is concerned, that needs
to be in immediate need of protection.

Then we come to the prevention of crime defence.Is it
possible that the defendant honestly believed that the Israeli
Military were committing war crimes in Gaza?If so, is it
possible that the defendant honestly believed that MBM were
supplying the Israeli Air Force, whether directly or
indirectly, and it doesn't matter for our purposes whether it
was going to America or any other country, directly or
indirectly, with the component parts for the F16.If so, is
it possible that the defendant honestly believed that by
damaging the property of MBM he or she was assisting in the
prevention of either war crimes that he or she believed the
Israeli Military were committing, or conduct by MBM which was
ancillary to or assisting in the commission of such war
crimes, for such conduct would be an offence under English
law.If so (the fourth question) is it possible that it was
reasonable in all the circumstances, as the defendant believed
them to be, to damage such property?

Then to the defence of necessity.Is it possible the
defendant reasonably believed that it was necessary to damage
MBM's property for the purpose of preventing death or serious
injury in Gaza?If so, is it possible that it was reasonable
and proportionate in all the circumstances as the defendant
believed them to be to damage such property?

Now I stress again, a defendant does not have to have
been successful in carrying out what he was trying to do in
order for any of these defences to succeed.Nor is it
relevant to your consideration of these defences that if they
were to succeed people might be put out of work.You try the
case on the evidence in this court.Your sole consideration
is not to consider whether the defendants' actions may or may
not have an effect on others, you have to decide whether you
are satisfied so that you are sure, it being a conspiracy,
that two or more of them have committed a criminal offence.

Now bear in mind also in circumstances such as this the
actions of one party may have the effect you intend in itself
but it may also by its effects -- you may achieve your
objective by triggering a chain reaction so that the actions
of others in response to what you have done may in themselves
achieve your objective.A simple example of that: we will all
have read of Israel's attack upon a ship on the high seas,
killing nine people on board, and somehow, as the aggressors
(puzzling for a lawyer like me) seemed to claim they were
acting in self-defence.But the result of all that, of
course, is that certainly the nature of the blockade on Gaza
changed, because for once there was such a huge outcry of
world opinion that Israel thought it had better try and regain
face in the situation.(Pause)

It matters not, again as I repeat what I have said really
already, for your purposes whether the Israeli Air Force was
being supplied by direct sales or via sales from some other
country.

Now you may be wondering what on earth has the actions of
the Israeli Air Force to do with this country.The short
answer is that if the Israeli Air Force was committing crimes
in the way that the agreed evidence outlines in the unlawful
killing of Palestinians in Gaza and in the unlawful causing of
damage to property in Gaza, then under the War Crimes Act and
other legislation any member of the Israeli Air Force who set
foot in this country and who acted in that way would be liable
to arrest and prosecution, as is anyone within this country
who knowingly helps the Israeli Air Force to commit such war
crimes.

Next I want to say a word or two about------

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:Your Honour, I hesitate to get up, but please
forgive me.I am having a hard time in hearing and following
your Honour, and I don't know whether the jury might be also.

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:I thought I was and I hoped I was speaking
loud enough.I had better pull that -- I can't pull that
across.(Indicating microphone)I don't want to look at the
jury and yet I want them to hear me, but I can't move that.
Are you hearing me all right?If not I'll shout a bit louder.

MEMBER OF THE JURY:Your Honour, if you might speak a little more
slowly.

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:Yes, certainly, certainly.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:(Inaudible) shorthand (inaudible).(Laughter)

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:That's what I've been saying to everyone
else.(Laughter)

Next I want to say a word about lies.This relates to
Mr. Osmond and Mr. Levin, for when initially spoken to, Mr.
Levin said he was just lighting a cigarette, and in their
prepared statements in the bundle Tab 5, Exhibit 18 -- I mean
Tab 4, Exhibits 18 and 20, they both said that the break-in
was nothing to do with them.They both now accept that they
were parties to the agreement to break in and cause damage.

Lies in themselves prove nothing.People lie for all
sorts of reasons.They lie out of fear, including fear of
being arrested and locked up and kept in custody; they lie to
protect others; they lie because though they have a genuine
defence they don't think they will be believed.They lie out
of panic; they lie to conceal discreditable conduct falling
short of a criminal offence.It is only if you are satisfied
so that you are sure of the following matters that you can
draw any adverse inference from a lie: firstly, it is a lie
and that that lie is material to what you have to decide;
secondly, that the defendant in question knew it was a lie;
thirdly, that the explanation for the lie given by the
defendant is untrue; fourthly, that the only reason for the
lie is that the defendant in question knew of his guilt and
feared the truth coming out.In this case you may think the
initial lies told by Mr. Osmond and Mr. Levin don't help you
one little bit, because when they come clean they accept that
they were a party to the agreement to damage EDO's property
and they rely in their defences entirely on their reasons for
so doing.

Finally, a number of the defendants gave written
explanations to the police, but that they were entitled to do
rather than answering police questions, so do not hold that
against those defendants in any way.Those explanations set
out their defences.The fact that they didn't answer
questions was their right and does not in any way contribute
to the proof of guilt.

Mr. Smith, Mr. Tadman and Mr. Levin haven't given
evidence.They are entitled to remain silent, and you must
not assume guilt from their silence.You try the case on the
evidence which is put before you by the Crown.However, they
are all entitled to rely on the evidence given by others in
the trial, but silence at the trial may count against them
because you may draw the inference that it is because they
don't have an answer to the Crown's case, or none that would
stand up to cross-examination, is why they have not gone into
the witness box.

If you draw that conclusion you must not convict any of
them wholly or mainly on the strength of it, but you may treat
it as some additional support for the Crown case.You should
only draw that conclusion against any one of them if you think
it -- sorry, I beg your pardon, I turned the wrong way -- if
you think it a fair and proper conclusion to draw and are
satisfied that the Crown's case is so strong that it clearly
calls for an answer and that the only sensible conclusion is
that the one in question has no answer to it, or none that
stands up to examination.In the light of the evidence in
this case and what comes from the cases of their co-defendants
and from their DVD statements and their statements to the
police, you may think in this case that that direction does
not lead you to the conclusion that it would be fair to draw
any inference adverse to any of them.In particular in the
case of Mr. Levin, you may think because of his mental health
problems that it would be particularly unfair to draw such an
inference.

Democracy would not exist unless there were reporters
and members of the public who were prepared to stand up for
what they believe to be right, and sometimes, as in the case
of the suffragettes, even to go to prison for their beliefs.

As Edmund Burke says: "For injustice to flourish, all that is
needed is for good men to do nothing."Indeed, people like
Mr. Osmond, who put themselves in harm's way to protect others
may, in fact -- there may be much to be admired about people
like that.Perhaps if he had done it in this country in the
last war he would probably have received a George Medal.
However, that does not give anyone a licence without any
justification to commit offences.It is your task in this
case to decide whether it is possible that such justification
existed.

I am going to start with the background relating to
Israel and Palestine and to the evidence which points to the
war crimes being committed by Israel in Gaza, an area over
which Israel has imposed a blockade.The evidence shows that
those war crimes are committed against the civilian population
of Gaza and against the property of its residents, including
the United Nations by the Israeli Forces.

Now you have to look at the evidence coldly and
dispassionately.It may be as you went through what I can
only describe as horrific scenes, scenes of devastation to
civilian population, scenes which one would rather have hoped
to have disappeared with the Nazi regimes of the last war, you
may have felt anger and been absolutely appalled by them, but
you must put that emotion aside.

Equally, you must put aside any feelings of being
thoroughly ashamed of our Government, of the American
Government and the United Nations and the EU in doing nothing
about what was happening.You just concentrate on the
evidence and deal with the case on the evidence as it stands.

Dr. Taylor's evidence led us along the way.She told us
how the immunity which the United States by the veto affords
-- in the Security Council affords the protection to Israel
and prevents it from suffering any reprisals for its actions.

The result enables Israel to cock a snook at any decision of
the United Nations or of the International Court of Justice by
simply ignoring anything that is decided.The USA has
exercised its veto in the United Nations Security Council to
veto resolutions condemning Israel on no less than forty
occasions.Israel has been able to ignore resolutions like
242, calling on it to withdraw from the Palestinian lands and
calling for a United Nations Force to protect peace.However,
calls are made for Israel to pull -- so whatever calls are
made for Israel to pull down the barrier, and the judgment of
the International Court holding it illegal and to stop
building settlements in the West Bank are simply ignored by
Israel in the occupied territories seized in 1967.One can
see from the maps produced by Dr. Taylor that effectively
Israel takes from the Palestinians more and more and more of
their land.So with that broad picture in mind let me
concentrate on Gaza.

Gaza is a small area twenty-five miles long by four to
eight miles wide.Following the 1967 war it passed from
Egyptian to Israeli control.It has a population of
one-and-a-half-million, whose very existence depends upon UN
food handouts.It can best be described as a giant prison
camp, for the Israeli withdrawal did not give Gaza its
freedom.It is surrounded by a fence.That fence is
patrolled by Israeli tanks, planes fly overhead; Egypt keeps
the one small crossing into Egypt closed.That crossing is so
small that, if used, insufficient aid would get in.The
remaining crossings are controlled by Israel, and it is Israel
that decides what comes in and who goes in and out.In
international law the West Bank remains an occupied territory.

In January 06 Gaza elected Hamas as its governing body.
Israel's response was to impose a land, air and sea blockade.
Even John Dugan, the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner,
was refused entry to Gaza by the Israelis.What food or aid
going into Gaza is decided not by the needs of the Gazans but
by Israel.

Hamas took to firing rockets into Israel between 2001
through 2009.Nineteen Israelis were killed.Hamas has no
Army, no Air Force and no Navy.Israel has a highly trained
Army, a Navy and a Air Force with more F16s than any other
country except for the USA.It is the USA's policy to ensure
that Israel is kept well-armed.

so we come to 2006.Israel was at war in Lebanon, and
named after an attack on a civilian quarter of Beirut, Israel
developed what is called after that area the Dahiyah doctrine,
namely that Israel would apply disproportionate force and
cause great damage and destruction to any village from which
Israel was fired upon.Israel regards such villages as
military bases not as civilian villages.So with an election
coming up and wanting to prove to the Israeli people that it
was tough, on 27th December 2008 the Kadima government in
Israel launched operation Cast Lead against Gaza.It sealed
the border so no one could get into it or out of it, it
stopped journalists entering it and encouraged them to leave
and it claimed it was acting in self-defence.Of course, in
those circumstances Israel doesn't want journalists around,
because if they are allowed to get in the full truth might get
out.So far as self-defence is concerned it is only, of
course, a defence if the force used is proportionate to the
threat.If you use disproportionate or unreasonable force or
act in revenge, or for some other purpose, you become the
aggressor, even if you were acting in self-defence originally.

Israel's attack on Gaza involved the use of
disproportionate force, despite the fears of the international
community, and in particular the United Nations Human Rights
Adviser, John Gaye.The Israeli plan called for a shock and
awe bombardment.In three minutes 40 seconds, 250 Gazans were
killed on the first day, as compared with nineteen Israelis
killed by rocket fire in eight years.Throughout the
campaign, and you have seen the papers saying they were still
flying, the evidence of Dr. Taylor was that throughout the
campaign -- I should say still flying after the 17th --
throughout the campaign F16s were used as bombers, apart from
what the Israeli Army was doing on the ground.

Worse still, Israel dropped leaflets telling civilians
to flee the urban areas, with a result that many took shelter
in United Nations facilities, which under international law
should have been safe, which were clearly marked and from the
fact that the GPS co-ordinates had been given to the Israelis,
but these were nonetheless bombed, with many people killed.

On 15th January the Al Quds hospital was bombed.
Hospitals, ambulance depots, mosques, United Nations compound,
industrial and agricultural sites, the sewage and the
electricity power plants were all targeted and damaged or
destroyed.Journalists and United Nations officials were kept
out of Gaza whilst all this was happening.Those with power
to do something, the United Nations, the EU, the USA and the
Quartet contented themselves by calling upon Israel to stop.
No doubt protected by the United States, Israel ignored the
calls, their confidence in the USA's protection, you may
think, boosted by the fact that whilst the United Nations
called for a cease-fire the USA abstained.Had the same
events happened anywhere else, you may think, there would have
been military intervention by the powers in question, as there
had been in Bosnia and Kosova, but you may think double
standards were applied because it was Israel -- to Israel,
because nothing happened.

You have seen the news reports as to what happened.
They are harrowing, and I am not going to take you through
them in detail.You will have them with you, and I need only
say, I think, that the death toll mounted, with women and
children being killed over and over again.To use Dr.
Taylor's words, it was a turkey shoot; the civilians had no
escape.

When it was all over, the United Nations Human Rights
Agency set up a Commission to investigate what had happened.
That Commission was headed by an eminent international Juris
Justice Goldstone, who is himself Jewish.Because his report
was not to the liking of Israel he was condemned by Israel as
being anti-semitic.Israel, of course, had refused to
co-operate with this Commission.Justice Goldstone -- you
have his reports before you and I am only going to concentrate
on the summary -- Justice Goldstone found that both Israel and
Hamas were guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
He said that Israel's attack on the population of Gaza
constituted grave breaches of the 4th Geneva Convention.He
said that certain weapons, white phosphorous, flechettes and
DIMES, though not illegal under international law were used
indiscriminately against civilians, and so their use should be
regarded as a war crime.Israeli Forces had used Palestinians
as a human shield, which was a war crime.Detaining
Palestinians in degrading conditions, depriving them of water,
food and sanitary facilities was a war crime.

He said that the objective of the Israeli defence force involved the use of
disproportionate force, causing great damage and destruction
to the civilian population and to the infrastructure, also
causing suffering to civilians, which again was a war crime.
The damage caused by Israel to property in Gaza was estimated
between 1.1 and 1.3 billion pounds.

He said the targeting of the United Nations compound,
the sewage system, the electricity power plant was a war
crime.He said the impact of the blockade and the military
actions on the Gazan people meant that Israel had violated the
4th Geneva Convention and was a war crime.The 4th Geneva
Convention protects people under occupation.He said the
attack on the Palestinian authority's assembly building, the
United Nation building, the ambulance depots and the hospitals
violated customary international law.

He recommended that both Israel and Hamas investigate
these matters, and said if they failed to do so it should mean
that the allegations were brought to the International
Criminal Court, and that as the crimes were so serious
universal jurisdiction should be invoked to prosecute those
concerned. Israel has not carried out any investigations, and
unlike in the case of Milosevic over Bosnia and Kabanda over
Rwanda, nothing has been referred to the International Court.
as you can see from Exhibit 29, you need not look at it
for the moment, 1,086 Palestinians were killed, including 346
children and 79 women. 4,900 were injured, 1,709 of those were
children, 724 were women, 140,000 children were suffering from
stress and trauma, against nine Israeli soldiers killed and
four Israelis killed in Israel and 58 injured by rocket
attacks.

You have heard the unchallenged evidence of Sharyn
Lock, one of the international volunteers on the ground in
Gaza.She told how she was shot at by the Israeli Army in
2002, using fragmentation bullets (I think they used to be
called dum-dums) at a time when she had her hands in the air
and was trying to deliver on foot food aid to a village.

Courageously in 2008, December, when it was bitterly
cold, she went back to help the injured.You saw her DVD
outlining Israeli attacks upon civilians under eighteen, women
and children being injured, dragging people from their homes,
medical workers being targeted, hospitals being overwhelmed,
and of the need for an international response, at least with
sanctions.The whole of the Gaza strip was being targeted she
said.She hoped in vain that people like her could get the
government to respond -- I say "the government", the
governments to respond.They never did.The Israelis were
targeting ambulances, she said, they would strike an area and
when the ambulances arrived to collect the wounded they would
strike again.

She spoke -- she spoke of the Israeli Army making
ambulance workers collect the wounded four or five days after
they were wounded by hand-drawn donkey carts.She started to
work in the Al Qud Hospital, where the Israeli Army attacked
with white phosphorous.Civilians got caught up in that
because, thinking it was a lighting system, they went out into
the street.The use of water to put out the phosphorous
fires, of course, just made them burn the more because of the
oxygen in the water.There were tanks and snipers in the
street; people ran to the hospital for safety.

A nine-year-old girl was brought in shot in the face by a
sniper.Her DVD showed that child's mother and sister.As a
result of the Australian Ambassador intervening and telling
the Israeli government she was in the hospital the Israelis
said they would stop shelling the hospital within an hour, but
they continued for a further twelve hours.Four to five
hundred people were sheltering in the hospital.With the
Israeli's permission, but only to go on foot, the Red Cross
tried to get those people to a school about a mile away, but
by that time that school had been attacked.Later that day
they had to evacuate the bedridden from the hospital as the
roof was badly damaged by fire.She said F16s were used.She
witnessed war crimes, she said, and those who supplied Israel
had the blood of children on their hands.

Dr. Lucas, the MP for Brighton Pavilion and a former EU
MP, led an EU delegation to Gaza.She was really shocked by
the scale of the destruction: families who had left loved
ones, homes, properties, sitting crying outside the rubble of
their homes with no food.She was incredibly impressed by the
efforts of the International Solidarity Groups and the courage
they showed in defending others.It became clear to her that
war crimes were being committed indiscriminately against
civilians, so when she came back she tried to do something
about it.The EU have a Trade Association Agreement with
Israel; it has a human rights clause in it which says it can
be suspended if Israel violates human rights.Although, she
said, suspending it might be rather symbolic it would at least
carry a message to Israel. So she tried to get the EU Commission to enforce that clause, but guess what? The Commission refused.They did nothing whatsoever, she said, to
uphold their own values and support the Palestinians in that
way.Perhaps that was the most direct and greatest and most
depressing indictment she found of the EU's behaviour.She
met Government officials in this country and tried to motivate
the British Government into doing something, but because of
the USA they were not willing to do so.

Because of the huge numbers of enquiries which she got
in her EU office about EDO MBM she tried to investigate MBM.
Her request under the Freedom of Information Act was refused.
She tried to meet Mr. Hills, but the fact he demanded
confidentiality in respect of the meeting and what she might
learn of any meeting she, you may think quite rightly, refused
to meet him on those terms, and as a result she concluded that
what was happening at MBM was not above board.She said
people in Brighton have done their best to make their voices
heard in relation to MBM and have tried to influence the
Council, but they have achieved nothing.

Finally, you have in respect of what happened the
Goldstone Report.I have already summarised it, I am not
going through it, save to say that it reaffirmed that in Gaza
Israel were applying the Dahiyah doctrine.

That leads me conveniently to Mr. Hills.I am going to
divide his evidence into three parts.I am going to begin by
identifying the weapons we are concerned with.Firstly, there
is the ZRFAU, the Arming Unit.This has the effect, when
connected to a bomb, of turning a dumb bomb, that is one which
is to say an unguided one which you just drop and hope, into a
smart bomb, one which can be guided towards its target.

Next there is the ERU-151, a bomb release unit, into
which the ZRFAU fits, the ERU-151 shoots the bomb away from
the plane without the risk of the plane being blown up.Then
that has an FRCS cable attached to it.The purpose of that
cable is to send a signal to the bomb release unit to release
the bomb.The advantage it has over other types of release is
it is reusable.Then there is the VER-2, the actual bomb
rack, which holds two missiles and which were used with the
ERU-151 and enables an F16 to carry two missiles under each
wing.We have also heard about storage pallets for such bombs
or missiles being made under sub-contract for MBM Brighton and
sent to General Dynamics in Texas in the United States.

Now all the weapons I have described are for use with
the F16 fighter bombers.In addition, there is the RAIDER,
which is a smart multiple store carrier.This enables an F16
to carry not only the missiles under each wing but also to
carry two under the belly of the plane without thereby
increasing the plane's bomb load in safety.The RAIDER was
developed between MBM and General Dynamics in the United
Kingdom.General Dynamics (UK) of course, is part of General
Dynamics in the United States, a major arms company who supply
Israel.Only the MALTS, which Mr. Hills has accepted was made
in Brighton, that was a practise bomb carrier.

Now let's turn to who uses these weapons.Well, second
only to the United States the Israeli Air Force has the
largest fleet of F16s in the world.The VER, which is also
made under licence by Elbit in Israel, is only used by the
Israeli Air Force.Now Mr. Hill tells you that with the
exception of the storage pallets and the practise bomb
dropping machine, none of these items are ever made in
Brighton and then exported to Israel or to the USA, who might
then be expected to re-export them to Israel, because the
United States, as you have heard, does not consider itself
bound by any End User Certificate.His explanation is that
until it was wound up in 2008, all these items were made by
Artisan in New Jersey.

So why does MBM come into the matter at all?The reason
is that MBM acquired the intellectual property rights and
patents from a company calling itself Lucas Western in the
United States.At the time MBM were owned by Morgan Crucible,
who were also the owners of Artisan.Almost as soon as MBM
acquired the intellectual property rights and the patent,
Morgan Crucible made MBM hand them over to Artisan as Artisan
was a small American company based in the United States and
has opened up the American market for Morgan Crucible, the
biggest market, of course, in the world for these items, and
especially was it helpful and the United States Government's
policy to buy American was also to support small companies.

In October 2000 there was a management buy-out of MBM,
and as part of the buy-out the new holding company, Emblem,
received Artisan more or less for next to nothing.The new
company was taken over by EDO in the USA in 2003, and again in
2007 ITT, in the United Kingdom, took over -- which is part of
the USA ITT group, acquired MBM.The last two companies, EDO
and MBM are major USA arms companies.ITT is perhaps the
biggest arms company in the world; it supplies Israel, and so
did EDO.

So why do the protestors, who have been protesting since
2004, not accept what Mr. Hills says?Firstly, the USA's
policy is to ensure that Israel is supplied with weapons.95%
of Israel's weapons come from the USA, 4% from the EU and 1%
from the United Kingdom.As I have said already, the USA
refuses to be bound by the terms of any End User Certificate.
what is an End User Certificate?If I want to export
arms from this country I need to obtain a form from the DTI
and fill it in, and then at the end of it there will be a box
labelled "End User" and into that box there has to go a
signature acceptable to the Government confirming that the
person who signed there is indeed at the end of the chain and
will not be selling items on.Perhaps in comedy there is
always a grain of truth.Some of you might, like me, have
been a great admirer of the "Yes Minister" series.I don't
know if any of you ever watched a particular version of it,
but if you did you may recall a scene in which Jim Hacker, the
Minister, tried to get an understanding of the End User
Certificate from Sir Humphrey, the Permanent Secretary, and he
was concerned that a particular detonating device had found
itself in the hands of Italian terrorists.He ended up by
asking if the system was really a charade, to which he
received the answer from Sir Humphrey: "I think this
conversation should end here, don't you Minister!"(Laughter)
Well, as you saw in that defence exhibit, the Oxfam
Report, because parts can be exported, perhaps without the
need for an End User Certificate, and then be assembled
elsewhere into a weapon, you may think the system is one which
it is not too difficult to circumvent.In the first three
months of 2008 the United Kingdom exported to Israel20,000,000
worth of weapons, that rising from 6,000,000 in the previous
year.You saw Mr. Clegg refer to that in the news handout CAD
43.

Next, of course, Mr. Hills himself conceded that in the
light of MBM's advertising material and of what could be found
in various websites, a protestor might well both honestly and
reasonably have thought that the weapons were made in
Brighton.All you have to worry about is the word "honestly".
Why is that?It is because over and over again when the
weapons are advertised the name of MBM is used.You may have
been puzzled by the fact that Artisan, who Mr. Hills claimed
were the makers of ZRFAU were being used (it is his
terminology) as a shop-window for MBM in the USA, and that was
why the name MBM was used.Well, you may wonder what was the
point of putting MBM's name on something when it was something
they never made?(Pause)

What is the value then to MBM of advertising such a
weapon?It can only be worth advertising a weapon if MBM were
going to profit by its sale.There is no cross-over of
accounts between sister companies, each may benefit their
holding company but not each other.You have documents in
front of you, you have been taken through them at great but
necessary length.I propose only to summarise the effect.

Firstly, all the advertising material, the flyers, were in the
public domain; over and over again, it is the name MBM that
comes up.In 2006, D1 if you want to make a reference to it
in due course, EDO MBM were actively manufacturing the ZRFAU.
The CRU-151 is described as being designed and developed by
EDO MBM; over and over again the point of contact is described
as Brighton, and that is so even on the Artisan website.For
the USA consumption MBM becomes a division of Artisan.It
never was such a division."Ah", says Mr. Hills "but MBM
defence systems, the word "defense" is spelt with an S rather
than a C in America, so that shows it had nothing to do with
Brighton.He then had to concede that, of course, if it had
been spelt with a C that would have given the game away to the
United States Government.

On 7th December 2005 you have the former managing
Director, Mr. Jones, telling a court that the VER-2 is an
Israeli Military industry project "and we are jointly
marketing it for a third country", and Mr. Hills accepts that
third country could only be Israel; they are its only users.
You have the fact that shortly before a trial in 2005 a
reference to the F16 bomb rack was removed from the website on
Mr. Hills' advice.At first he claimed the changes to the
website were normal reviews in the course of ownership
changes.That perhaps was not the full truth, for in
cross-examination, faced with his previous evidence in March
2009 that it was removed on his advice and that the protest
played a part in the changes to the MBM website, and further
that the reference to the ZRFAU were removed from their
website in April 2007 because, as Mr. Hills put it, some
aspects of the website confused the protestor community, he
had to accept what he had said previously in court.

At the time he was unwilling to disclose the company's
export licence.In June 2007 there is a letter from the DTI
to Mr. Gibbon, saying that the only export licence for MBM was
an export licence for the export of two ZRFAUs to the United
States for scrap.To the outsider, who would not know the
full history, it must, you may think, have looked very
suspicious that these two items were in the United Kingdom at
all.You may think that to the outsider, the protestor, the
very fact that these two items were sent here and the
necessary checks as to why they had failed had to be carried
out here could only be attributed to a belief that they were
manufactured in this country, for why should the reservoir of
expertise to examine them, to decide why they had failed,
reside in a company that had never ever made such items?

There are two other final matters, H19, the letter from
Mr. Jones to Mr. Osmond dated 25th May 2004, saying it is
impossible for any company manufacturing components to state
where those components may eventually be used, and lastly
there is the fact that ITT, the owners of MBM, are one of the
largest defence corporations in America.They supply Israel,
they were fined, if you remember, 100 million dollars in
respect of their lack of regard for export regulations in
America, and also American General Dynamics, another very
large defence company, supply Israel, as does Raytheon, one of
the largest missile manufacturers, if not the largest missile
manufacturers in the world.It was Raytheon who contracted
MBM to supply missile pallets for shipment to General Dynamics
in the USA.MBM then sub-contracted that contract to another
company.

Let us look very briefly at the question of the damage
caused.Let me sound a firm warning at the outset: do not
confuse the word "reasonable" with the word "effective", they
do not mean the same thing.You may think it doubtful whether
any action of this kind would in itself put MBM with the huge
resources of ITT behind it out of business.Damage, whether
major or minor, may cumulatively lead to keeping a factory
closed for a considerable period.In this case I think we
were told it was a week.You may think it would be a mistake
to look at individual items of damage, such as lockers, or
Health and Safety notices or microwaves, look rather at the
cumulative effect.Equally, bear in mind whereas a small
demonstration outside the gates of a factory may achieve
nothing, events of this kind may focus the minds of factory
owners and perhaps even politicians on a situation in question
so that they review what they are doing.

Let me briefly review what happened.In the early
hours of 17th January these defendants climbed over the
perimeter using a ladder.Osmond and Levin remained outside.
Those who went into the factory caused damage to the value
of187,000.It is set out in detail on the list, Exhibit 2,
which sets out the damage to doors, windows, computers,
machinery, lockers, microwaves, the Health & Safety notice,
and we know also that papers were just thrown out of the
window left, right and centre.I am not going through it in
more detail.

Before going into action, Mr. Smith, Miss Saibene, Mr.
Woodhead, Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Tadman all made video-clips
setting out what they were doing.Let me go through what they
said; Exhibit 3, Tab 4 I think in the Crown's documents.

Mr. Smith: "Hello there, my name is Elijah Smith.I'm
43 years old and I'm too old for this shit.As I'm looking at
the world scene, yeah, I'm getting more and more horrified.
This is disgusting.I don't know why I didn't notice it
before, but I've been looking at the law and I don't feel that
I'm actually going to do anything illegal tonight, but I am
going to go into an arm's factory and smash it up to the best
of my ability so they cannot actually work or produce weapons
or the munitions that these very dirty (inaudible) have been
provided to the Israeli Army so they can kill children.I
said I would come on and do an interview.I can't be arsed
with interviews, yeah; the time for talking is gone, a little
bit too far, yeah, I'm not a (inaudible), yeah, I'm just a
person from the community and I'm deeply disgusted.We have
laws in this country, specifically sections 3(1) of the
Criminal Law Act 1967.That says to the best of my knowledge
of law, ignorance of law is no excuse and I'm allowed to
decommission an infrastructure if they're committing greater
crimes, and that, sir, is what I'm going to do.Thank you
very much."

Ornella Saibene: "Yeah, okay.My name is Ornella
Saibene.I believe that ITT EDO are making weapons of mass
and indiscriminate destruction that breaks international law.
It's up to us citizens to make sure that companies in this
country do not betray international law."

Mr. Woodhead: "Israel are committing a grave crime in Gaza.
350 children I think have been reported dead. It's absolutely
disgusting that weapons are being made in our
cities in our country that are being used to kill innocent
women and children and are being used indiscriminately; it's
about time that something was done about it.If the law and
the police can't do anything about it, it's about time
somebody else did."

"Are we rolling yet?Hi" -- this is Mr. Nicholls --
"I'm Bob.This is a brief note I'm going to submit to the
local Constabulary when they eventually arrest us.The
Israeli defence force is guilty of war crimes in Gaza.EDO
and many other arms manufacturers around the United Kingdom
are aiding and abetting the commission of these humanitarian
crimes and war crimes.The action we have taken is intended
to hamper or delay the commission of war crimes and prevent
this greater crime.The glorification of war and the mass
production of arms and weapons is a sickness in the heart of
those involved."

Mr. Tadman: "Yeah, okay, hi.My name is Harvey.I've
just heard that the Israeli Air Force dropped leaflets telling
Palestinians to leave their homes otherwise they would be a
legitimate target, and then -- so then I read that the
Palestinians should leave their homes.They took shelter in
the United Nations compound.They were still targets.The
warehouse that was storing humanitarian aid and first-aid,
food whatever, had been targeted so now it's time to have it
out with EDO.Thank you."

Mr. Osmond and Mr. Levin were arrested in the woodland
close to the factory.The remaining defendants were arrested
in the factory.I have covered what Mr. Osmond and Mr. Levin
said at their arrest.As you know, in Mr. Osmond's first
defence case statement he went on to say that he had nothing
whatsoever to do with it.Mr. Levin in Tab 1 -- you have seen
the statements -- said exactly the same, the demonstration was
nothing to do with him, and what the other defendants have
said is really covered by their evidence in this case, so I am
not going through their statements to the police.I have
looked already at what Mr. Smith and Mr. Tadman said.Mr.
Tadman, as you know, didn't say anything to the police, but he
did make that DVD.

I think at that moment, before my voice packs up, I am
going to break.Tomorrow I shall probably be, I should think,
another hour and then you will be considering your verdict.
Now, it is vitally important at this stage, I have not
finished my summing-up, do not start talking about the matter
between yourselves; you will have plenty of time when you
retire.We can't have some of you getting into one corner and
agreeing one thing, others into another corner agreeing
something totally different without you all being there to
hear the arguments that are being put forward, so keep it to
yourselves.Yes, thank you.Thank you; please go.

(In the absence of the jury)

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:I hope everyone heard that, as I was
defeated by the fact that this is on this side.(Indicating
microphone)

(Following further matters being discussed, the case adjourned
until the following morning)

29th June 2010

S U M M I N G U P (Continued)

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:Ladies and gentlemen, after we adjourned
last night I received a message from you saying that you would
like to have my directions on the law in writing.Despite my
daughter's criticism of my handwriting as resembling the
wanderings of a drunken spider (laughter) Mr. Dias believes he
can read it, and is very kindly going to type it out for you,
but because I have rather summarised what I said yesterday I
am going to go through it very shortly in summary form, and
that is what you will have.In the process I shall answer the
question you have asked, which is: "Does the objective test of
reasonableness also apply to the prevention of damage to
property, as has been quoted re the prevention of war crime?"
The answer is going to be no it doesn't, that is a subjective
test, and I will come back to that in a moment.

What I said to you yesterday is you consider each
defendant separately.The prosecution must prove the case
against each defendant.The prosecution must satisfy you so
that you are sure of guilt.

conspiracy: if a person agrees with any other person or
persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which if the
agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions
will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any
offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the
agreement then that person is guilty of conspiracy to commit
the offence or offences in question.

Matters following from that definition: at least two
people must be involved for there to be a conspiracy.Once
satisfied there was an agreement, look at the evidence against
each defendant in turn and decide if that defendant was a
party to the agreement.Once you decide that a defendant was
a party to the agreement then whatever another party to the
agreement does or says in pursuance of the agreement is
evidence against all who are party to the agreement.
What a defendant says to the police is only evidence in
the case of that defendant.Evidence given in court by a
defendant is evidence in the case as a whole.The agreement
can be inferred from the actions of the participants.
Criminal damage.The charge is conspiracy to commit
criminal damage.Criminal damage is defined as: it is an
offence for a person without lawful excuse to destroy or
damage any property belonging to another intending to destroy
or damage such property.

Lawful excuse: a person has a lawful excuse if he
destroys or damages property in order to protect property
belonging to another and at the time of the acts alleged he
honestly believed that that property was in immediate need of
protection and that the means of protection which he adopted
were reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances.A
purpose of the defendant in damaging MBM's property has to be
to prevent destruction by the Israeli Air Force of property in
Gaza.A purpose, and I emphasise the word "a" there, means
that the purpose does not have to be the exclusive purpose.
Also it has to be the immediate needs of the property which
you consider, not how quickly the defendants acted.The test
for honest belief is a subjective test, it is what each
defendant believed, not what you or I believe.The same
applies under this heading to the question of whether the
means adopted were reasonable.If it is possible that a
defendant honestly believed that the means adopted were
reasonable then that is sufficient to establish that the means
he used were reasonable, no matter what you or I might think,
and that is the answer to your question.

Prevention of crime.By law a person is entitled to
use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the
prevention of crime.The test of reasonableness in this case
is an objective test.

Necessity.Necessity means that the defendant whose
case you are considering must have been acting reasonably and
proportionately to avoid a threat of death or serious injury
to others.The test involves two questions: was the defendant
impelled to act as he did because as a result of what he
honestly believed the situation to be he had good cause to
fear that otherwise death or serious injury would result to
others.Secondly, if that was possible, is it possible that a
person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of
the defendant, would have responded in the same way?If the
answer to both questions is "yes" then the defence of
necessity is made out.

General comments on the defences.It is not a
prerequisite to the success of any defence that the defendants
had to succeed in their objective.As the burden of proof
rests on the Crown the Crown have to satisfy you so that you
are sure that a defendant did not have a lawful excuse or was
not acting out of necessity, or was not using reasonable force
to prevent crime.It is sufficient for any defendant to
succeed on any one of these defences for your verdict to be
one of not guilty.The defendants do not have to succeed on
all defences.Sometimes a person will achieve his objective
indirectly through the response of others to his actions;
sometimes he will succeed directly.It matters not whether
MBM supplied the Israeli Air Force directly or whether they
supplied a third-party, who then supplied Israel.I just
insert there, I am saying "MBM" rather than EDO MBM or ITT EDO
MBM, it is just shorthand as MBM.

Back to what you shall have in writing.Do not consider
the effect of your verdicts on others, for example, whether if
these defences succeed people may be put out of work.Your
task is to consider whether two or more of these defendants
have committed this offence.

Next consider the questions in the steps to verdict
questionnaire.Next, if the members of the Israeli Air Force
commit war crimes they can be prosecuted in England, as can
anyone who knowingly helps the Israeli Air Force to commit
such crimes or is complicit in their commission.

8, lies.Sorry, that should be 9, or it could indeed be
11, I beg your pardon.Next, people lie for all sorts of
reasons, out of fear, including fear of being held in custody
until trial (I would add there so that they can't get on with
what they want to do) to protect others, for fear of not being
believed though they have a genuine defence, out of panic.
You can only draw an inference if you are satisfied, firstly,
it was a lie and that that lie is material to what you have to
decide; secondly, that the defendant in question knew it was a
lie; thirdly that the explanation for the lie given by the
defendant is untrue; fourthly, his only reason for lying is
that he knew of his guilt and feared the truth coming out.In
this case lies by Osmond and Levin may not help you, as they
admit they were party to the agreement to damage EDO MBM's
property.

12.Written explanations to the police.The
defendants were entitled to take this course and they were
entitled to set out their defences in this way and not to
answer questions.Do not hold it against them, it does not
contribute to proof of guilt.

13.Not giving evidence.Smith, Tadman and Levin have
not given evidence.They are entitled to remain silent.You
must not assume guilt from their silence.You try the case on
the evidence.These defendants are entitled to rely on the
evidence of their co-defendants.Silence may count against
them, because you may draw the inference that they have no
answer to the Crown's case, or none that would stand up to
cross-examination.If you draw that conclusion you must not
convict any of them wholly or mainly on the strength of it,
but you may treat it as some additional support for the
Crown's case.You should only draw that conclusion against
any one of them if you think it is a proper and fair
conclusion to draw and are satisfied that the Crown's case is
so strong that it clearly calls for an answer, and thirdly,
that the only sensible conclusion is the defendant in question
has no answer, or none that would stand up to examination.

Having regard to the evidence in this case and to what
their co-defendants have said and what they have said in their
DVD statements and, where applicable, in their written
statements to the police, it may be that you will not think it
fair to draw any inference against any of them because they
have not given evidence.In the case of Mr. Levin because of
his mental health problems you may think it would be
particularly unfair to draw any inference adverse to him.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dias; you can now disappear
and do the hard work.

MR. DIAS:Well, your Honour, I think we can thank Mavis Beacon,
which is the software programme that taught me to touch-type!
(Laughter)

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:Thank you very much.

MR. DIAS:And I will go and do my best.

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:And that, as you realise, answered your
question on the damage question.Thank you very much.Then
that is that.Well let's turn then, because I finished the prosecution
case yesterday, to the defence case.Miss Saibene gave
evidence.Apart from matters arising out of a demonstration
against weapons, Miss Saibene is a person of good character
aged fifty.Treat her previous conviction as really a matter
arising out of the same principles which has caused her to be
before this court.Do not hold it against her in any way; it
would be unfair to do so, as her actions were based on her
very, very firm principles.

So what does good character mean?Good character in
itself is not a defence to a charge.However, you take it
into account and you weigh it in the scales in this case in
her favour, in the case of others in his favour, in two ways.
Firstly, she has given evidence, and as with anyone of good
character it supports her credibility.In other words, you
take it into account and you weigh it in the scales in her
favour when you come to decide whether it is possible that she
is telling you the truth.Secondly, the fact that she is of
good character may mean that she is less likely to have
committed this offence than otherwise might be the case.What
I have just said applies to others in this case who have given
evidence.I will deal with each defendant as I review their
evidence, but in relation to each, where it arises, that their
only convictions arise out of their firmly held principles, do
not hold these convictions against them and treat them all as
being of good character.The same applies to Mr. Osmond in
relation to his row over the ticket on which he spent120 and
then wasn't allowed to use; I suspect we would all get a bit
hot under the collar in those circumstances.

I particularly say that in this case because there has
been no challenge by the Crown to the honesty of any of the
defendants' beliefs that Israel was committing war crimes in
Gaza, unlawfully killing civilians and damaging property,
including water, electricity supplies and sewage plants, that
MBM were supplying components for F16s to the Israeli Air
Force, whether directly or through a third-party.Those facts
do not bring the case to an end, because you still have to
answer remaining questions that are before you.

Back to Miss Saibene.She is aged fifty and is clearly
a person with a very deep social conscience who has made great
contributions to her community.Judith Davies wrote of the
work she had done in St. Paul's in Bristol, helping to respond
to the wave of crime and injustice young people were
suffering, looking at the need for a Youth Centre, lobbying
the Council, supporting a community art project, contributing
to a youth community event, supporting the Full Circle, a
family youth project, fund-raising, and the Saturday Better
Days Play Club.

Mr. Clarke, who is a member of the Bristol Stop the War
Coalition described her as a dedicated campaigner for issues
she believes in, always behaving with passion, integrity and
honesty.

Mrs. Lynch described her as her best friend, and told us
of the enormous help and support which she had given to Mrs.
Lynch's disabled son and of her work helping the disabled and
homeless.She also told us of Miss Saibene's commitment to
the peace movement.

Mrs. Baker, the director of Child Victims of War
charity met Miss Saibene through the peace movement and they
became friends.She described Miss Saibene as a person for
whom she has great respect, being a wonderful member of the
local community and being involved with Gaza and Stop the War
in Bristol.

Dr. Dye, himself closely involved with what is
happening in Gaza, knew Miss Saibene through the Bristol
Solidarity Campaign.He made documentary films in Gaza in
2005 and 2006 and he gave copies of the DVD to Miss Saibene to
encourage her interest in Gaza.He described her as a very
intelligent peace-lover, believing in justice and peace for
everyone seeking a better world.

Miss Saibene herself told us of her involvement with
the peace movement for thirty years, being involved in CND,
Greenham Common, the (inaudible) demonstrations against the
Iraq War.She spoke of designing leaflets, banners and
posters and of organising film shows.She spoke of her
involvement with the Palestine Solidarity Group.

She dealt with her knowledge of her co-defendants.Mr.
Nicholls is a peace campaigner from before the invasion of
Afghanistan back in 2000/2001 and is a man who works with the
homeless.Mr. Smith she knew from the Autumn of 2008 when she
joined the Raytheon campaign in Bristol.Mr. Tadman she had
met around 2003 when campaigning against the Iraq invasion.
He would drive her to the Raytheon vigils.He would give her
newspaper cuttings and discuss them.He was dreadfully moved
by the plight of the Gazans over Operation Cast Lead and he
took part in the making of those video clips that we have
seen, Tab 4, and referred to them.Mr. Smith, she said, lived
in the Red Factory, apparently a squatters' building where a
number of social events took place.They had discussed the
Israeli Forces killing Gazans and the Raytheon booklet about
the Raytheon 9.They had discussed "On the Verge" and they
had discussed and agreed that action was necessary.

Mr. Woodhead she had met in about August 2008 during
the Raytheon campaign.He was actually temporarily staying
with her in Bristol.During that campaign a journalist
brought her a book about the Raytheon 9, that is your exhibit,
dealing with their break-in to Raytheon in 2006 and their
decommissioning a computer there. They were charged with
criminal damage, they raised the same defences as in this case
and were acquitted.This gave her confidence that she was
acting within the law.

She took us through the horrors, and there is really no
other word for it than horrors, that emerged in the press and
on the news and the footage as to what the Israelis were doing
in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.Women and children were
killed, many more injured, United Nations buildings bombed,
civilians having taken shelter there.You may think that
perhaps "Hell on Earth" would be an understatement of what the
Gazans endured at that time.

She took us through that DVD where the Israelis
themselves were protesting at the action of their government,
saying it was illegal, and even a man who was retired from the
Army and was a reservist refusing to join his unit and
encouraging others to become refusers.

She dealt with Tab 3, our items 6 to 12 and 16 to 17 of
the defence bundle, taking us through it and referring to the
various articles.She dealt with the fact that the Israeli
Chief of Staff referring to Operation Cast Lead had said:
"This is only the beginning."

She dealt with her researches showing that the United
States supplied 95% of the weapons to Israel, the EU 4% and
the United Kingdom 1%.The United States sanctions against
the supply of arms to Israel -- sorry, I must correct myself
there, and all of this despite the United Nations sanctions
against the supply of arms to Israel.She had seen the film
"On the Verge", which firmly pointed the finger at EDO MBM as
a supplier of components for F16s to Israel, and to this time,
that is 4th January, she had limited her protests to writing
to MPs, going to demonstrations, talking to the press and
trying to get attention to focus on what Israel was doing.
All of this proved fruitless.

From the Smash EDO and Palestine Campaign website and
from leaflets and from word of mouth she had learnt quite a
lot about what MBM were doing.She knew that they made bomb
release mechanisms for the F16; she knew EDO MBM, now owned by
ITT, had massive contracts with the US Government and that MBM
made the bomb release mechanism without which the weapons
wouldn't work.She had seen the clip from "On the Verge"
where the solicitor spoke of war crimes and the fact that the
Directors of a company which had manufactured gas during the
last world war had been held complicit in war crimes at the
Nuremberg trials.That solicitor, of course, was the
solicitor to several of the defendants in this case.She had
no doubt that MBM were making release mechanisms for bomb
racks for the Israeli F16s.People were looking for ways, she
said, that would interrupt the arms supplies to Israel.

Events came to a head at a meeting on Monday 12th or
Tuesday 13th January, organised by Stop the War.Someone
suggested that anyone interested in direct action should meet
at the back of the hall.She, Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Woodhead
attended that meeting at the back of the hall.

There followed a further meeting in Mr. Nicholls' house
on Wednesday 14th.She, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nicholls and Mr.
Woodhead were there.They talked about the situation and
decided on nonviolent direct action.Someone suggested that
they went to Brighton.This was the first mention of
Brighton.Her aim was to try to stop the carnage.

Someone having suggested going to Brighton, the next
day, on 15th January they met at her house.Mr. Tadman also
came to her house.They took what they needed and got into
Mr. Woodhead's van and went to Brighton, and when they arrived
there they went to Mr. Osmond's house in the early evening.
The journey seems to have taken about eight hours.There had
been no plan to go to Mr. Osmond's home, it was simply a case
of finding somewhere to stay, and he, it seems, is the first
person known to one of their number who was in, or perhaps it
wasn't he who was in, but it was Mr. Levin who shares
accommodation with Mr. Osmond who answered the door and let
them in.

Mr. Osmond came back later, they all discussed the
situation in Palestine and decided to take direct action.The
next day they reconnoitered the MBM factory to see how to get
in, purchased hammers with which to smash everything, and made
the DVDs explaining their reasons for their actions.Their
purpose was to get in the way of the war machine so no
components or technical support could reach Israel.MBM
became the chosen target, because that was where the
components were being made, and by choosing it they would
prevent spares reaching Israel.

They made the film setting out what they were going to
do.She knew she wasn't committing a criminal offence if she
was acting to save lives.The suffering of the Gazans, she
said, was terrible and they could not escape and she believed
that anything that she and the others could do would help.
The police had been asked to investigate MBM, but after one
day that investigation had been dropped.The democratic
process was going nowhere and was not upholding the law.
Therefore she thought to stop the MBM factory for as long as
possible was reasonable in the circumstances.

They broke in.She injured her hand; it required two
operations.She and others threw things out of the window,
she using her good hand.She said there was a lot more stuff
thrown out of the windows than the photographs show.Clearly
all the paperwork had been cleared up before those photographs
were taken, but she recalled in particular something like a
badge-making machine which was very heavy which was thrown out
and is not shown in any of the photographs taken.The police
photographs were not taken until later and Mr. Hills'
photographs were taken not straightaway, because it was dark,
but when it was daylight.

Mr. Nicholls, turning to him, is fifty-two.He is a
Buddhist.He lives in Bristol and has no previous convictions
whatsoever.He has worked with the homeless in hostels and as
a Housing Support Officer dealing with people with multiple
problems.He has also been involved in voluntary work in
Bristol.He is a political activist; he has travelled to
India and worked with young people there.He was a Parish
Councillor for the Green Party.He has participated in peace
vigils over Iraq during the last seven years.He has been
involved in campaigns against the arms trade for the last
sixteen years.He wants, if possible, an ethical arms trade
to prevent arms reaching regimes which carry out atrocities
and violate human rights.He wants to encourage governments
to follow that route.He has been involved mainly in protests
against Israel's actions in Palestine.He has written to the
Ministry of Defence about Trident, and the reply is at Tab 30
in your bundle.

He learnt of EDO MBM when he saw the film "On the
Verge".It made him very interested in the campaign against
the arms trade and against arms being made at MBM.The film
came from the "Smash EDO" campaign and he saw it around the
end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008.The campaign had run
for three or four years and he found out a lot about what MBM
did.He looked at their website and was convinced that EDO
MBM was a military facility involved in the manufacture of
components going to Israel.

Israel had been oppressing its own population and
committing atrocities in the Lebanon, where property was
destroyed and civilians were killed on a massive scale.He
was interested in companies facilitating international war
crimes.Israel had a fleet of about 300 F16s, a key part, he
said, of modern warfare.Israel over decades had been
supplied by the USA.The F16s are assembled in America and
are shipped to Israel.F16s have lots of parts; each supplier
has only expertise in the supply of a certain part.EDO MBM
is one of the contractors or sub-contractors, he said,
supplying such parts.

He dealt with his knowledge of his co-defendants.He
had known Miss Saibene through peace vigils, but not very
well.She was a political activist.Mr. Smith he met when he
was involved in the Raytheon rooftop protest in Bristol in
December 2008.He knew him as a fellow activist.Mr. Tadman,
a fellow activist, he first met at a peace vigil three or four
years ago.Mr. Woodhead he met for the first time at the
meeting at the Centre on 12th January 2009.Mr. Osmond he did
not meet until 15th January -- I think he meant 16th January
when he came to Brighton, but he had seen him feature in the
"On the Verge".

On 27th December Cast Lead began.Before that he knew
Gaza as a small, highly populated area where people were
denied the usual facilities and to where humanitarian aid was
controlled by Israel.Before Cast Lead Israel had restricted
water supplies to Gaza.Due to the Israeli blockade medical
facilities were poor.There was a lot of poverty.All this
he learnt mainly through the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
He knew Dr. Dye, who ran the Bristol Palestine Solidarity
Campaign, which he and Mr. Nicholls joined two or three years
ago.

He had read Tab 26, that is in the defence bundle, the
one with the red star on it, about the Israeli coloniolisation
and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.He knew of the Israeli
colonial settlement policy.He knew of the apartheid roads
along which only Israelis could travel, not Palestinians.He
knew of Israel removing Gazan settlements.He knew Gazans had
suffered for a very long period of time under a very
oppressive government so he has helped with the Palestine
Solidarity Campaign, distributing leaflets, explaining the
situation in Gaza and writing to his MP.

On 27th December 2008 Cast Lead started.He doesn't
have a TV but he learnt about the horrendous situation caused
by Cast Lead by using his local library, and the articles
which he read you will find again in the red star bundle, Tabs
33 to 41.He had read David Miliband's statement, Tab 33; he
had read Gordon Brown's call for a cease-fire at Tab 37; he
had read of Israel being accused of war crimes by the United
Nations Human Rights Chief, Tab 40.He had read of the United
States undermining the calls for peace by abstaining at the
United Nations Security Council motion which called for a
cease-fire.He read of the death-toll passing a thousand.He
went on three marches in Bristol and attended peace vigils.

On 12th January he attended the Bristol meeting and
talked to others, including Miss Saibene and Mr. Woodhead.He
felt more was needed to be done.A third of the casualties in
Gaza were children, and as in the Lebanon, the Israeli Air
Force was destroying the infrastructure in Gaza, destroying
water supplies, hospitals and houses.He had no faith in any
government doing anything to stop it and he didn't anticipate
the United Nations doing anything.

He wrote to his MP about Gaza and he got the reply on
15th January, or rather the reply was dated that; he couldn't
recall if he had received it by hand or it had been delivered
by post.He felt upset and frustrated; it was all talk and no
action.Israel, he said, was always using extreme force and
was using disproportionate force in Gaza.He believed MBM was
committing war crimes in supplying Israel.He decided to join
in with the decision to take direct action against MBM.He
believed by destroying equipment, making the workplace
unworkable and stopping the means of communication they could
shut MBM down and stop the supply of components to Israel.
This action took him out of his safety zone, but he was 100%
sure it was the right thing to do.

Well, I am not going through again what happened,
because I have already been through that with you.Well we
learnt more about Mr. Nicholls from others.Anita Lewis, the
Deputy Manager of Redwood House for the homeless in Bristol,
she knows Mr. Nicholls as a Project Worker with clients who
have a variety of problems.She described him as a highly
valued member of her team.She said he considers others when
he makes a decision and would not do anything to harm anyone.

Mr. Davey, a teacher, has known him for over twenty
years through his active membership of the Green Party and the
campaign against the arms trade.He described Mr. Nicholls as
a man of integrity, totally committed to social justice, care
of the environment and the rule of law in both national and
international affairs, who was always well-informed about
current affairs and mature in his analysis of important
issues.

Justin Crenell has known him for eighteen years and
described Mr. Nicholls as a considerate person and a valued
member of the community in East Bristol.

The Buddhist Priest, the Reverend Jakid(?) has known him
for four years.The Buddhist run a Maytree Project in India
in order to help poor children to gain confidence and access
jobs and education.Mr. Nicholls volunteered to take part in
that programme.He was one of the few to be accepted, because
apparently it requires some rather special talents, and he
went to India and did a fine job.He is a deep-thinker, he
said, who cares very much about what is happening to people
around the world.

Mr. Smith, as you know, had the two newspaper cuttings
in his possession, the picture of an injured child in the
(inaudible) and the article saying that the Gazans' fight was
one-sided.His solicitor, that was the lady who participated
in "On the Verge", was present in his interview and he
contented himself with what he had said in the DVD which I
told you about yesterday, Tab 1, and in what he said in his --
I correct that, Tab 4, and what he said in his written
statement in Tab 1, and as he has not given evidence I think
it right that I should go through that Tab with you.(Pause)

Sorry, it has 35 at the bottom, in fact, it wasn't numbered at
the top.He says: "On 17th January I entered EDO MBM in
Brighton and decommissioned it.I have not committed any
offence.I had lawful excuse and acted out of necessity.I
consider it to be my civic duty to prevent a greater crime,
namely the slaughter of innocent children in Palestine.At
all times I acted reasonably and proportionately and out of
consideration for others.I now wish to exercise my right to
remain silent." As I have told you already, he was perfectly
entitled to take that course and no adverse inference should
be drawn.

the same applies to Mr. Tadman, who contended himself
with what he had said on that DVD, the one I told you about
yesterday in Tab 1.Again he had his solicitor present.On
12th January he had written to his MP and had received a reply
in the same terms as the letter to Mr. Nicholls; that is Tab
32 if you want to look at it.He, of course, had not read
this letter before the events of 17th January, and you may
think if you read that letter perhaps it would not be too
unkind to say that it holds out no hope and rather waffles on.

Mr. Woodhead gave evidence.He is nearly twenty-six
and has never been in trouble before.He is of good
character.Again, we know a bit about him.He has lived in
Bristol for the last five years.He was brought up a Roman
Catholic in Yorkshire.Father Gott, his Parish Priest in
Yorkshire, met him when he was fourteen and found him to be
very quiet, reflective and unusually sensitive.He went on
the church's visit to Holy Island.He went to Russia with the
church and saw the predations people suffered in their daily
lives.He went to Poland and spent a summer working at an
orphanage for disabled children.He visited Auswitchz and was
deeply moved.He joined campaigns against poverty.He stood
up for peace and justice and has demonstrated against poverty.
He is a good man with a good heart who eschews violence and
who thinks and cares deeply about these issues.

Mr. Cooke, who knew Mr. Woodhead first as a neighbour
and then as an employee, described him as being the opposite
of violent, never having seen him angry or bad tempered or
committing any kind of violent act.He describes him as a
peaceful young man who is involved in politics and cares
deeply about the world.His parents are teachers.

Apart from the matters to which I have referred, he also
went to South Africa where his sister and her husband live and
he said there were still signs of apartheid and the contrast
between rich and poor which he found upsetting.For four
years he has worked with his present employers, a company
concerned with recycling.He has worked with community
groups.He went to his first protest in 2000 with his
parents.It was a protest against third world debt.He has
been involved in Palestine protests and in the Anti-Iraq War
demonstrations, again with his parents.

His sister Ruth went to the West Bank before 2009 and
he learnt of the situation through her.At checkpoints his
sister had been treated badly by settlers in the West Bank.
Through a friend he learnt that MBM were supplying weapons to
Israel and to the Iraq War and so it was that that in June
2008 led him to go to MBM, or to the adjoining woodland for
the Carnival Against the Arms Trade.There he learnt more.
He met Mr. Smith, who he had seen before; they shared common
beliefs, both being disgruntled over the Iraq War and the
Palestine situation.

He met Mr. Osmond at a Book Fair in Bristol in late
2008 in which Mr. Osmond spoke about MBM.They spoke about
MBM and others supplying arms to Israel.At the end of 2008
he and Mr. Smith were both living at the Red Factory in
Bristol and they talked about MBM.He and Mr. Smith showed
the film "On the Verge" in Bristol.They both accepted what
was said in that film.A journalist friend of his got copies
of the Raytheon 9 and circulated that book.It dealt with the
nine people decommissioning an arms factory in Derry which was
supplying Israel.He learnt that they were later acquitted of
the charges against them.

MBM's website gave him information about what MBM
supplied, as did others such as the "Smash EDO" website.He
read books dealing with the arms trade and the torture trade.
He read about ITT and its links to the Nazis.He learnt that
Israel used missiles sold to them by Raytheon which had killed
three generations of a family in Lebanon in 2007 and which
were being used in Gaza.He joined the protests at Raytheon's
premises in Bristol.Miss Saibene, Mr. Tadman and Mr. Smith
were all involved in those protests.

He became very familiar with the blockade in Gaza.He
had read newspapers, he would go on the internet, listen to
the radio, watch Al Jazeera, that is the English Arab News
station, he would read Blogs and read the Palestine Solidarity
Movement website.Once Operation Cast Lead was started he
spent at least half-an-hour a day reading about what was
happening in Gaza.Tab 42, dated 30th December, was the
report and photo of five young girls killed in a house.This
affected him deeply as they were obviously innocent children.
F16s were being used to kill girls and to attack the girls.
Tab 39, the Guardian 7th January, showed a school where
three people were killed and a lot of others caught in the
shelling.Tab 44, 7th January, the report of 15,000
sheltering in UN schools which were being attacked resulting
in many deaths and injuries.9th January, The Independent
report of the four children being found next to their dead
mother, the Red Cross being forced to use donkey carts to
rescue them as the Israelis wouldn't let ambulances through.
Then there was the shelling of the United Nations
building, where families had been told to take shelter, as he
understood it.There was Exhibit 30, the Channel 4 newscast
on 8th January.The United Nations suspended aid as a United
Nations worker had been killed by the Israelis and two others
had been wounded.He realised the attacks would continue
until the United States said enough was enough.The
International Red Cross, a body which normally remains silent,
accused Israel of breaching international law.He was
disguised by all of this.

On 16th January there was the report in The Independent
of the United Nations being attacked with white phosphorous, a
horrendous weapon whose effects are worse than Napalm, which
causes babies to be born with deformities.He and Mr. Tadman
were both very disturbed by this report and by the fact that
food supplies had been attacked and civilians had been killed,
and by the fact that schools and hospitals were attacked when
civilians were sheltering there.He knew the words of Justice
Robert Jackson, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, that in this
situation there was a duty above national interest to protect
civilians from atrocities.He was shocked by the press
release, Tab 43, in which Mr. Clegg spoke of the value of the
UK arms exports to Israel rising from 6,000,000 in the whole
of 2006 to 20,000,000 in the first three months of 2008.

In 2002, as we know, the United Kingdom had signed up to
an ethical arms policy not to supply arms to countries who are
in breach of United Nations resolutions.He knew this and
that Israel had breached numerous United Nations resolutions.
He reported Raytheon to the police on 13th or 14th January,
but the Desk Sergeant just laughed at him and said it was a
matter that was out of their jurisdiction. His view, and that of his co-defendants, was that the United Kingdom Government, the United Nations and the USA had
failed to stop war crimes and so something needed to be done,
a view with which his co-defendants fully agreed.MBM was
chosen as the target as they believed MBM were producing the
ZRFAU, the arming unit and bomb release equipment for Israel
in Brighton, whereas they couldn't say where Raytheon was
producing missiles for Israel.

He first met Mr. Levin on 15th January, when he and the
others arrived in Brighton after an eight-hour journey in his
van.They talked to him and spoke of their plan.They also
spoke to Mr. Osmond when he got back after midnight about it.
Mr. Osmond said he could help to record what had happened as
none of them wanted any violence.They were trying to stop
war crimes and to stop components for F16s reaching Israel.
They wanted to bring MBM to a standstill and to stop them
supplying components.

When they went into the factory Mr. Smith found a JDAM
missile (in fact I think it turned out from the evidence of
Mr. Hills as a dummy missile) which confirmed their belief
that MBM was involved in the F16 bomb release mechanisms.
They intended to be arrested, and he said Mr. Osmond had been
to Palestine and was deeply affected by what was happening in
Palestine.Mr. Osmond was very well-informed about the
situation in Gaza and had been drawing attention to MBM's
activities for some years.He was appalled at the lack of
action by the British Government.

Mr. Tadman he had met in 2008 over protests about
Raytheon.Mr. Tadman had attended meetings of the Palestine
Solidarity Campaign.They shared their concerns over the
plight of civilians in Gaza.Mr. Tadman was concerned that
paramedics were being shot at in Gaza.He had seen "On the
Verge" and was aware that ITT EDO supplied components to the
Israeli Air Force.Mr. Tadman showed Mr. Woodhead a letter he
had received from his MP.They all wanted to damage the main
saver and the computers at MBM in order to hinder
communications with Israel.

So we come to Mr. Osmond.I am going to divide his
evidence into two, his own account and then what he told us
about Mr. Levin.That part of his evidence I will deal with
when I deal with Mr. Levin's case.(Pause)Well -- forgive
me a moment.(Pause)What did he have to tell us about his
own position?His parents are teachers.He got a First at
university, and on leaving university he worked in medical aid
to Palestine, fund-raising for the provision of medical
resources.His interest in Palestine had started when he went
to work on an Israeli kibbutz after school where he had an
Israeli friend.He saw the Palestinians were badly treated by
what he regarded as a very militaristic society.They were
discriminated against.

After that visit he went both to the West Bank and to
Gaza.Both were under Israeli military occupation.He
visited Jericho and found that the crossing from Israel was
like crossing from a developed to an undeveloped country.He
travelled via Gaza to Egypt.Gaza looked like a prison, a
ghetto.Rafah, the town where there is the Egyptian crossing,
looked as if it had suffered badly under the occupation.This
led him to his views on the occupation.

In 2002 Israel had launched a full-scale military
invasion of the West Bank and Gaza.They had occupied all
major towns on the West Bank and destroyed all government
buildings.In Ramallah they had destroyed the Palestinians
authority's compound.That compound had no defence force, or
that authority had no defence force and it couldn't even
control its own borders.The Israelis trapped the civilians,
shutting off the entrances and exits.They put the population
under curfew, they destroyed houses, they also put armoured
vehicles on the street.They occupied the houses of other
people, they occupied Jenin.A disabled man who was too
disabled to leave his own house was crushed to death by them
knocking the house down.Their operations there went on until
2004 and later, and he didn't think what Israel did in Gaza in
2009 would end there, the Israelis would go on committing war
crimes in Gaza effectively for long into the future.These
were acts of collective punishment.

He started going back to Palestine as he felt that no
one there could tell the story and that he needed to be a
voice for the Palestinians by speaking to someone.He learnt
of the work of the International Solidarity Movement, a
nonviolent organisation in getting supplies to people trapped
in their homes.He showed us the photograph, the starred
bundle Tab 1, that showed the destruction of the Tubas police
station in 2002 by Israeli bulldozers with air support.

He hoped by taking statements to break the isolation of
the Palestinians.In Nablus the Police Station was bombed by
F16s, and so he came to get involved with the Palestinian
Solidarity Campaign as he realised that Israel was violating
international law.Sometimes when he has been present Israeli
military behaved better because he is there.Sometimes he has
seen men detained for unreasonable lengths of time and they
are blindfolded.

He went to Fulani, where land was being illegally taken
from the Palestinians; the separation wall divided the village
from 70% of its agricultural land.Israelis were cutting down
Palestinian olive trees.He saw the mayor watching this
happen and took a photo.The building of the wall was against
international law so he decided to campaign against it.He
went to see his MP, who put down an Early Day Motion calling
for the government to oppose the war and use its influence to
stop Israel building it.Of course, nothing happened.This
was in 2002.

He went in 2003 back to Jayyous in the West Bank, where
the wall had separated villages from their farmland.This
benefitted an illegal settlement on the Israeli side of the
wall as if the villagers couldn't get to their farmland the
Israeli settlement under Israeli law could just appropriate it
for themselves.He helped the villagers to pull the wall
down; I think in fact it was a fence at that point.The
Israeli Army arrived and he was arrested.Israel tried to
deport him, but an Israeli intervened to assist him.He
attended the International Court of Justice when it held that
the wall was illegal.In fact, the struggle of the wall then
became a joint struggle between Palestinian and Israeli
members on one side and the Israeli government on the other
side.Israel ignored the International Court of Justice
ruling.Apparently by demonstrations some of the Palestinians
got their land back.At one demonstration in (inaudible) he
was grabbed by Israeli soldiers, punched in the face and
kicked.He was hit with wooden sticks and was detained in the
sun by the soldiers.Many of these demonstrations against the
war were met with rubber bullets and beatings.He was hit by
a rubber bullet in one demonstration and was hit in the
shoulder by a live bullet in another.Israeli Forces had used
teargas and modified water cannons, filling those cannons with
foul-smelling water which makes one vomit, or with chemicals
that burnt the skin.Both in Israel and here he has been
arrested.

He dealt with his convictions but said that he disputed
his conviction for calling Mr. Hills "murdering scum"; he
hadn't in fact called him that, although he so thought of Mr.
Hills.He said his conviction for obstructing the highway
related to MBM as they were manufacturing components for the
Israeli Air Force who are committing war crimes.

In Israel a woman he knew was shot in the groin with a
rubber bullet and was badly hurt.In Jenin a resident was
shot in the chest with a modified teargas cannister and died.
People he worked with to his distress have been killed.
Palestinians have told him to go back to this country and try
and deal with the situation as no one was helping them.

You will remember he took these requests very seriously.
He knew of the Philadelphi corridor, the corridor made around
the boundaries of Gaza by the illegal demolition of
Palestinian homes by the Israeli Army, during which Rachel
Corrie, one of the International Solidarity Volunteers bravely
stood in front of a bulldozer which was being driven by an
Israeli soldier and was effectively murdered when he drove
that bulldozer over her in 2003.He had read her e-mails, and
you will find them in Tab 5 of the red bundle, of the red star
bundle.He was so moved that he decided to return to Israel.
He went to Rafah and saw that many buildings had been
destroyed and houses were riddled with bullets.As a result
of seeing the destruction of homes on DVDs he joined a convoy
bringing aid from Egypt to Rafah.The aid was let in, but he
wasn't.

He went to Hebron in 2006/2007 going to the Tel Rumeida
project.That city has an illegal Israeli settlement in the
heart of a Palestinian city.The illegal settlers were
extremely violent to Palestinian civilians.They took to
walking Palestinian children to and from school, and during
the day they would stay on the street, he and others that is,
to monitor and video the situation in the hope that violence
would be avoided.Often eight to ten-year-olds would be the
ones he walked to school and who were attacked by settlers who
would throw stones at them.One of a group of adults with the
children on one occasion was so seriously injured that he had
to be hospitalised.On Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath, the
attacks would escalate.He was attacked then he was
monitoring a situation where settlers were illegally trying to
break down the door of a Palestinian's home with a view to
illegally taking over the house.He and others made their
presence known, whereupon the settlers attacked them.He was
punched and kicked and fell to the ground.He was kicked in
the head and pushed down into a rubbish hole.
In 2006/2007 he tried to organise the Brighton Tubas
Solidarity Group.They built a school; you will see that, I
think, at Tab 15.He took statements from a Bedouin family
who had been killed when Israelis made an air strike on a car
carrying someone who Israel wished to assassinate.He told us
of Israel's assassination policy; it wasn't a policy of arrest
and trial.

He told us of hundreds of Palestinian homes built on
land in the Jordan Valley which was Palestinian land would be
demolished by the Israeli Military, and if it had not been for
the support of the international groups how they even more
would have been demolished and how they had built a school,
despite the Israeli Military claiming that it was illegal.

He told us of the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila
Lebanese refugee camps in 1982, when 800 people were
massacred, Israel having sealed off the camps and allowed
their allies in.He said that the people were trapped in
Gaza.He told us about the incident at Cana(?) when the
Israelis dropped leaflets telling the people to leave the
area, and when the people did, shooting them.He said as a
result twenty-eight people in one house who dared not leave
were killed in an F16 strike.Sixteen of those were children.
This led to a rooftop demonstration, he said, MBM, with the
banner which you have seen in Tab 10 being unfurled across the
roof.He knew the Israelis applied the Dahiyah doctrine of
disproportionate force, killing civilians and he knew that
they would do so in Gaza in 2009.He dealt with Israel's
destruction of the village Al Hadidiya, using military
bulldozers.

He first came across MBM in 2003, when he came across a
reference to Brighton.This reference said EDO and MBM were
working with Raytheon as part of the Paveway missile team.
When he looked at the EDO MBM website he found advertised the
VER-2, the bomb carriage used only by the Israeli F16s.He
continued his investigations and found more provable links
between MBM and Israel.The Iraq War was his motivation to
start protesting against MBM as he believed war crimes were
being committed, and like many, he did not believe that it was
a legal war.There were weekly demonstrations at the factory.

He attended over 100 of these.There were three protest camps
during the summer.They spoke to an Argos journalist.He
wrote to Mr. Jones, the then Managing Director of MBM.His
response was unsatisfactory, as he said he couldn't be sure
where any equipment finished up when it went to a third-party.
This tended to suggest, so far as he was concerned, that MBM
didn't comply with the regulations.He didn't believe the
Directors when they said they didn't supply Israel either
directly or indirectly, as the US EDO website advertised the
ZRFAU arming unit used by the Israeli Air Force.All the
documents put out by MBM contradicted their assertion that
they didn't supply Israel as it would have been illegal to do
so, it was in the company's interest to make such denials.
he dealt with his approaches to Mr. Lepper, his then
MP, and helped compose a Council Motion condemning MBM and he
took a petition to the police station, all without result.He
learnt of the ITT motto: "One team one mission", effectively
complaining that its factories wherever they were worked to
the same cause.

On 28th December he left for a pre-booked holiday in
Thailand, not realising the seriousness of the situation, but
in Thailand the appalling horrors of the situation unfolded.
He got the e-mails at Tab 16, the pictures of the policeman
being killed at a passing-out parade.He followed the
International Solidarity Movement's website.He read Jenny
Linnell's website, Tab 19, reporting, among other things, that
the port had been cut off.He read Sharon Lott's website.
Perhaps I can summarise it by saying the appalling tragedy
that unfolded before us in what we have read over the last few
days unfolded before him.He believed that the Israeli Air
Force was using F16s.He read Rachel Corrie's e-mail, Tab 5
page 2, referring to being in the middle of genocide; she, of
course, was dead by this time.

He returned to England on 14th or 15th January, and on
15th January he attended a meeting in Brighton on the subject
of Gaza, returning home in the early hours of the 16th to find
his co-defendants at his house, they having been let in by Mr.
Levin.Then it was that he learnt of the plan to decommission
MBM.He thought it was a good thing to do; it could save some
lives in Gaza and stop war crimes being committed, but he
didn't believe it would bring the Israeli Air Force to its
knees, he thought it would be a while for them to stop the
manufacture of the ZRFAU and the support that MBM was giving
to Israel.He thought MBM was complicit in Israel's war
crimes.He didn't think that Operation Cast Lead would be the
end of Israel's activities in Gaza.Israel's war crimes
continue in his experience, and don't just happen when Israel
is conducting operations.

By way of illustration he took us to Tab 7, the picture
of the girl whose family had been shelled and killed by the
Israeli Navy whilst enjoying a picnic on the Gaza beach.He
had also seen the report of 9th January of the US trying to
hire a merchant ship to deliver ammunition to Israel, a repeat
of what had happened in 2006 in relation to the Lebanon, and
not surprisingly, therefore, he didn't believe the United
States' claim that this delivery was not linked to Israel's
attack on Gaza when it was arriving in the middle of such an
attack.

He took us through the various reports as to what was
happening in Gaza.I am not going through them again; I have
already summarised them.He said that the destruction of the
UNWRA building meant that supplies in Gaza would be
non-existent and that Gazans would starve as Israel had cut
off fisherman from the sea and farmers from their fields, and
that the destruction of their homes would leave Gazans without
shelter at the coldest part of the year.

He dealt with Israel getting journalists to leave Gaza
and with the fact that Israel had a very effective publicity
machine which falsely puts out the reports that Israel is only
responding to attacks on them, and falsely claimed in the case
of the UNWRA building that they were being fired on from
there, which was untrue.The United Nations Mr. Ging said
over and over again there was no firing from that building.

He then returned to what his role was in the events of
the 17th January.He said he agreed to go along with what was
happening.Those going into the factory wanted it to be
nonviolent, and so in case there were clashes with security
guards or with the police, he wanted to film the event to show
that those who had gone into MBM were acting peacefully.His
experience in Palestine showed that if you were there with a
camera then people tended to behave peacefully on all sides.
He and Mr. Levin would remain outside.

He previously knew some of those who went in.Mr. Smith
had been involved in publicising "On the Verge" in Bristol.
They had had fairly long conversations at camps in the wooded
area adjacent to MBM.Mr. Smith had worked for the Solidarity
Campaign from before 1997.He knew that Mr. Tadman had been
present in a talk in Bristol in 2006.He accepted that he had
gone to MBM with the others for him to film the event.

He then dealt with what he said to the police, accepting
as he did that he had lied.His reasons for lying were these:
firstly, he feared he would be kept in custody as he had been
something of a thorn in the side of the police over
demonstrations, and that would prevent him going back to
Palestine, but to Gaza in particular to help at a time when
help was badly needed.He was worried about the effect on his
parents if he was kept in custody; they worry about his
activities. Equally, if he was kept in custody, he couldn't
pursue his relationship with his partner and he was worried
about the effect of his being in custody upon her, but above
all, it was his desire to go back to Palestine that led him to
lie.

In his first defence statement dated 10th September he
stuck to that lie which he had agreed with Mr. Levin.As part
of his bail conditions at that time he was not allowed to
contact Mr. Levin and had to live elsewhere.Mr. Levin had
been deeply affected by what he, Mr. Levin, had seen in
Palestine and had had numerous breakdowns because of the
pressures of this case.Mr. Levin was withdrawn and wouldn't
talk to anyone following his experiences in Palestine, and so
that would go on for months, and so seriously was Mr. Levin's
health affected by the trials that he, Mr. Levin, couldn't
even think about it. Mr. Osmond was very worried for Mr. Levin
who was a very good friend of his, and so felt that in his
first defence case statement he couldn't change his account
without first being able to tell Mr. Levin what he had done,
as they had agreed about what they would say when they were
outside the MBM factory.He knew, of course, that Mr. Levin
was not very well.However, he now accepts, as he said in his
second defence case statement, that he was part of the plan to
break into MBM.

Again, we know a certain amount about him.Mrs. Hallam,
who spoke of his admirable work over the last six years in the
Solidarity Group, she told us of their two visits to the
Jordan Valley in 2007 and the help they gave there to
Palestinians.Mr. Osmond arranged the travel for the group
and he took care of the health and welfare, particularly that
of an elderly man aged 75.She dealt with the situation in
Fasayil where the Palestinian homes had been wiped out, where
they were not allowed to rebuild and where their water supply
had dried up due to an Israeli irrigation project, with the
result that they were forced to buy expensive water from
Israel.She told us that Mr. Osmond was a caring person,
careful about looking after people, and was a person who could
be trusted.She described him as a man of very strong
principle, committed to the peace movement and to causes in
which he believed, giving of his time selflessly to work for
such causes.

Mr. Brooker, the UNICEF Donor Relations Team Manager in
this country has known Mr. Osmond for twelve years.He
suffered a stroke at the age of twelve, he said.He has
developed his passion for trying to help people and he has
seen him grow into a mature thoughtful man, taking a keen
interest in the issues affecting society and supporting those
who are most vulnerable with patience and respect.He has
never known him to be violent, he has a strong sense of
loyalty to people close to him, which sometimes can cause him
to act to his own detriment.He is, he said, a kind,
considerate and caring person.

Mr. Rolf is his employer at Corporate Watch.He
described how Mr. Osmond's work focuses on Palestine,
particularly the occupation, with specific reference to
companies involved in profiting from the situation and who
help to supply the Israeli Defence Forces with weaponry and
help and to build and sustain illegal Israeli settlements in
Palestine.

He described Mr. Osmond as a hard-working, dedicated and
passionate member of their team, who works with undiminished
enthusiasm and vigour.Zoe Oles(?) had been the Administrator
of Sussex University and has known Mr. Osmond for eight years.
He is involved in organisations, she said, involved in peace
and resistance to injustice and violence in the Palestine
Solidarity and Human Rights and Refugee support.She went to
Palestine with him in 2002 and saw his commitment to
non-violence and had tried to resist the building of the wall
and the attacks on ambulance drivers.She said he is very
idealistic, committed to non-violence in his promotion of
peace, showing huge energy and patience in trying to achieve
these ends.

So we come to Mr. Levin.He is Jewish, he is
thirty-five, he has no convictions, cautions or reprimands
recorded against him, and so is of good character.He suffers
from cyclothymia, a mental health condition which causes
severe anxiety and persistent low mood.This has a major
impact on his self-esteem, which adversely affects his levels
of confidence and how he relates to others when stressed.For
this illness he is receiving ongoing treatment and support,
together with medication from the Community Mental Health
Team.

On his arrest in his possession were those leaflets and
papers Exhibit 15 Tab 15.All those are aimed at trying to
prevent Israeli war crimes.He had sent two texts from his
mobile phone on 15th January, one to Mr. Osmond saying Mr.
Smith was in Brighton and one on 17th January saying: "EDOs
getting trashed, don't know who it is but I love them."He
made no comment to the police, but, as you know, gave them a
false statement saying that he was no part of what had
happened, but in his defence case statement he accepts that he
was party to what happened at MBM.

We learnt a certain amount about him from Mr. Osmond.
Mr. Osmond believed that Mr. Levin had suffered a nervous
breakdown and had been treated by the Community Mental Health
Team.His breakdown was because of this case, and any mention
of it made Mr. Levin worse.Mr. Osmond was very worried about
Mr. Levin's mental health.They had met in 2003, when Mr.
Osmond spoke at a meeting about Palestine in Brighton and they
became friends.Both Mr. Levin's grandparents had been killed
in -- or great grandparents had been killed in Auswitchz.
This helped him to connect to the suffering in Palestine.

Mr. Osmond shared with Mr. Levin what he discovered
about MBM from late in 2003.Mr. Levin demonstrated outside
MBM and was arrested.In 2004 Mr. Levin went to Palestine
with the International Solidarity Movement, that being a
movement, in fact, in which both Palestinians and Israelis
participate.Mr. Levin lived with Palestinians in the Balata
Refugee Camp and witnessed the Israeli invasions and
incursions, coming with no warning and forcing civilians from
their homes, shops and offices and keeping farmers from their
fields.He was quite badly beaten up by Israeli soldiers
intervening at checkpoints trying to protect Palestinians.He
would also accompany to their fields the various Palestinian
farmers and, of course, being of Jewish background he was
treated all the worse.

He witnessed the sonic booms over the camps.You will
remember the F16s come over low, break the sound barrier, and
he said the terror -- that Mr. Levin witnessed the terror that
the civilian population suffered from these sonic booms, and
when he came back to Brighton he tried to publicise these
atrocities.He wrote to The Independent on 2nd July 2006, and
that is Exhibit 31 in the starred bundle, setting out his
experience and I just want to read through that: "Sir, I agree
that the Israelis have the right to live in peace and
security, but I wish to refute the claim that violence in the
occupied territories is a one-sided affair.I lived and
worked in the Balata Refugee Camp in the West Bank Palestine
last year and can assure you as an eyewitness that the Israeli
soldiers do target civilians.At least two or three times a
week Israeli armoured vehicles would drive into the civilian
areas, and soldiers shout at you in Arabic through their loud
speakers.This brought children onto the streets to throw
stones; the Israeli army would reply with gunfire. I have
witnessed the destruction of family homes by the Israeli Army
in retaliation for suicide attacks in Israel.I would not
consider this self-defence, this is collective punishment.I
have queued for hours in the blazing sun at checkpoints where
Palestinian civilians are pressed like cattle in what appears
to be a deliberate attempt to humiliate them in their own
land, and I have accompanied peaceful demonstrations against
the annexation of the war.

The war continues to be built on land recorded to
Palestinians under the Oslo Agreement, dividing Palestinians
from their water and agricultural lands.These
demonstrations, often supported by brave and idealistic
Israeli activists I count as my friends were broken up with
teargas, percussion grenades and rifle fire.If there is to
be peace in the region Israel must stop provoking Palestinians
into armed responses."

Mr. Levin, said Mr. Osmond, was deeply affected by his
experiences, he was deeply anxious and worried about the
Palestinian people because of the effect of the Israeli war
crimes upon him.He continued to protest against MBM, often
acting as legal observer filming what took place.

He joined organisations linked to Palestine.In 2006
Mr. Osmond and Mr. Levin started to share a house.They
discussed Israel and Lebanon and the atrocities in the Sabra
and Shatila camps.They both accessed all information they
could about Palestine.They both became aware of the Dahiyah
doctrine, and in 2007 Mr. Levin led a delegation to the Jordan
Valley.From there he put information on the internet using
the pseudonym Brett Cohen, in order not to prejudice his
ability to get into Israel.When three months later he
returned to Brighton, Mr. Levin was deeply affected by what he
had seen.He was shocked and was motivated to go on working
to reveal Israel's war crimes.He felt that what was
happening needed to be stopped, and that affected his view of
MBM, and this was his motivation for joining the events on
17th January.

He stayed outside the factory with Mr. Osmond so he
could lend support.Breaking into the factory was something
different to anything they had done before.At the factory
both he and Mr. Osmond discussed what they were going to say.

They were both known to the local police because of their
demonstrations over the previous five years.They had
previously been arrested and spent nights in police cells, and
you will remember they had books on them in case that happened
again.Both feared they would be remanded in custody until
this trial, and so they decided they would say they were not
part of the plan.

We heard a bit more about Mr. Levin from Mrs. Goth, a
former teacher now working for a charity in Brighton.She is
a member of the Brighton Tubas Solidarity Group.She has
known Mr. Levin since 2003.She knew he went to the West Bank
and he spoke to her of his experiences.When he went to the
West Bank she spoke to him every day, as she was part of his
backup team as he was a leader and co-ordinator of the group
that went, helping them to cope with their experiences.He
sent her e-mails and published on the internet that which he
found there, using the Brett Cohen pseudonym at all times.He
was amazed by how the Palestinians managed to cope. He sent
her Exhibit 32 it should be (I said 33 originally it should be
32) that e-mail setting out perhaps with somewhat ironic
passion the horrors of what he found.You have it before you;
I can't remember which tab it is in but you have it before
you."Our first night was spent in Al Jiftlik, a village with
a surreal scenario being half Area B and half Area C, meaning
half gets electricity and building works while the other half
lives in the 9th Century.We ate in Area B and slept in Area
C. At least Palestinians have permission to do this."Area B
you will remember under the Oslo Accord was joint occupation,
Area C was entirely Palestinian land."This is the village
reported by the previous delegation as having a tent school,
due to Israel's refusal to allow the Palestinians to educate
themselves, and while the head teacher at Al Jiftlik school
explained that thanks to serious pressure from the Manager of
UNESCO France on the Israeli authorities they were finally
allowed to build a permanent structure, the small school made
by the efforts of the local community has already seen its
first graduates go to the (inaudible) university in Nablus. A
larger school is in the final stage of being built with
Malaysian government funding.Connecting electricity to the
school was a separate battle finally won.Apparently Israel
felt that the electric infrastructure would ruin this area.
Messing up the environment is a victor's privilege I guess.I
was surprised to find the school is in Area B and therefore by
their own rules should have been allowed to be built with no
fuss.

The next stop was the United Palestinian Medical Relief
Council's clinic, one of the two clinics in Al Jiftlik.This
has one doctor, one dentist and two health workers. There are
two clinics, but this is the only one with a doctor who lives
locally and so opens in the day and the evening and has a
doctor able to do night visits, this for more than 5,000
people in the area he has to cover.The other doctor lives in
Jenin and cannot always get through the checkpoints to work.

The main reason for this is the difficulty of attracting a
doctor to an area without electricity.Most would prefer to
work in Jericho or Nablus.This doctor, however, prefers to
live in the village he was raised.As well as his official
duties he has responsibility for the UPMRC and is on the
Management Committee of a local NGO at a non-governmental
organisation with responsibilities for preventative health
classes. Frankly, I wonder how he gets time to sleep.

Later we moved on to a food security project, developed
by the Economic and Social Development Centre of Palestine,
funded by Oxfam.The project helps poverty-stricken farmers
to gain food, security and independence.Part of the project
is a creche to look after the children of farmers working in
the fields.Part is a women's group setting up a food and
handicrafts production centre and marketing the produce
through exhibitions, a bit like farmers markets back home,
which has already resulted in their work being sold in
supermarkets in Ramallah.They also have a solar powered
drying machine for herbs and semolina, a greenhouse project,
and have provided the poorer families with five goats or a
sheep each, plus training in livestock.We were told families
with five sheep now have thirty-six.ECD start the project
and will give advice until members feel confident they can run
it themselves.

After lunch we were showed the innate superiority of the
Palestinian farming methods over ours.We moved to Fasayil in
order to see the school which the Brighton Tubas Group had
helped to build.I was impressed to see they've started to
build themselves a clinic, despite the likelihood that it will
be demolished.There is an injunction against the building of
the school which is going to be fought in the Israeli courts.

There was supposed to be a hearing in March.Marn(?) a
Palestinian NGO is paying the legal costs as well as providing
furnishings for the school.A recurring theme of all these
projects shows there is more resourcefulness and tenacity of
the Palestinians.The only reason they need money donated is
the stranglehold Israel has placed on their economic
development.Everything else they do for themselves and do
well: allowed to build, have electricity, use their own water
as they please, go and give them freedom of movement and trade
these people would flourish."

Well, Susan Dane had known him for four years and she
became involved in the Brighton Tubas group.They worked
together sharing thoughts and ideas, planning delegations to
the West Bank and ways of raising awareness in the occupying
of the West Bank.Mr. Levin has helped to host Palestinians
in the United Kingdom.She described him as a sensitive, kind
and thoughtful man, with a keen sense of justice and fairness,
nonviolent in his approach to all, direct, honest, a man of
integrity, those being his chief weapons.

Mr. Porter, a retired nurse and an active member of the
Brighton & Hove Palestine Solidarity Committee, has known Mr.
Levin for four years.He admires him and regards him as an
inspiration for his actions in going to Palestine.Mr. Levin,
he says, shows particular courage, coming as he does from a
Jewish background, his actions always being motivated by his
empathy for the Palestinian people.He describes Mr. Levin as
an honest, conscientious and dutiful individual in respect of
his beliefs and ideals which are nonviolent.

Finally you heard from Mr. Kiderat.I think he appeared
on one of the Blogs or the DVDs.He does so much to help
Palestinians in the Jordan Valley against what they suffer
illegally at the hands of the Israelis.He said of Mr. Levin
that he first met him in 2005, when he visited the UK to
highlight the very serious situation in the Jordan Valley.On
that visit he said "I spent some time in Brighton and invited
several activists to Tubas and the Jordan Valley in the hope
that we could form a (inaudible) and work together long-term."
Three years later in 2008 Mr. Levin brought a
fact-finding delegation of six people from Brighton to
Palestine.As leader of the group he took responsibility for
their welfare and ensured they got the most out of the visit.

They stayed in the local villages, feeling what it is like to
have very little water, no electricity, no rights to renovate
or rebuild their houses, watching the Israeli settlers farm
the land that used to be theirs and having Army watchtowers
and Jeeps constantly watching and harassing them.Mr. Levin
helped them to understand the background to our situation, the
importance of going back to the United Kingdom and telling
people what they had seen.What he brought to the Jordan
Valley was a lot more than this, he had such a natural
understanding of the situation in the Jordan Valley that he
made some very good friendships.With only a limited amount
of Arabic he managed to really communicate with people, and
many people took him to their hearts.He is described as an
open, compassionate and committed young man.Mr. Kiderat said
that he and the Palestinians think a lot of him and always
look forward to when they will see him again.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, that brings me to the end
of the evidence.Two final matters.Firstly, when you
retire, will you ask one of your number, the previous
volunteer or someone else, to act as your foreman or forelady
to return your verdict when you come back into court and to
take the chair at your discussion, because I think you will
find any discussion goes the more smoothly if someone is
keeping a bit of order to it.

Now you may have heard or read about majority verdicts.
Please put anything you have learnt about them right out of
your minds and concentrate upon reaching a unanimous verdict,
one upon which you are all agreed, because not only is that
very much more satisfactory from everybody's point of view,
but by law it is the only verdict you are entitled to reach
until and unless I give you any further directions in the
matter.

Should you decide you need to see any of the DVDs or any
of the recorded Blogs again, just let the jury bailiff know
and we will come back into court and they will be played to
you.Otherwise, please take with you your bundle of the
exhibits and your papers and retire and consider your
verdicts.

(The jury bailiffs having been sworn)

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:I take it that with the jury bailiff is
going to go the jury's crib by way of an index to their
exhibits.

MR. SULLIVAN:There can be.It hasn't been circulated amongst
defence counsel yet.

JUDGE BATHURST-NORMAN:Well perhaps we can send that through to
you when defence counsel have seen it, as well as Mr. Dias's
efforts to type out what I said this morning.Oh, you have
got those.Oh, those have just got to be printed out, so they
will be with you very, very shortly.Go and start talking.

(the jury retired to consider their verdicts)

Last updated: 2:47pm, July 16 2010