England: Non-cooperation in court.

May 1983. The height of the cold war. The anti-nuclear movement was very large and the authorities were cracking down. A nationwide protest was organised against nuclear cruise missiles and nuclear escalation.  One of the actions was a 3-day blockade at the Upper Heyford air base near Oxford. Over 700 people were arrested.

 

The courts arranged for batches of 30 arrestees to be tried each day. On a remarkable August day one of these groups and their supporters took over Banbury Magistrates Court.  The sense of nonviolent empowerment that took place that day was so tangible you could almost reach out and touch it.  At the very beginning someone took it upon themselves to ask the court to observe a minute's silence as a mark of respect for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the magistrates agreed and it seemed to have a profound affect on the atmosphere in the court room thereafter. Each defendant represented themselves. In an atmosphere of hushed silence, many gave moving personal testimonies as to why they had taken part in the blockade.

 

As important was a spontaneous refusal by all defendants and supporters to observe customary court etiquette in standing for the magistrates.  As a consequence, the magistrate ordered the court to be cleared. This took over 30 minutes to achieve and the magistrates didn't do again.

 

Many defendants declined to plea. Instead they acknowledged their actions but asserted that they had done no wrong. Two young women who had been wrongfully arrested defended themselves in a trial within a trial.  It came down to their word against that of their arresting officer.  Their obvious sincerity and truthfulness convinced the magistrates and they were set free amid scenes of great emotion and joy.  It is rare for magistrates to act against police evidence but it happened that day.

 

When it came to their turn to answer the charges, a number of individuals declined to stand for the magistrates, sometimes out of a principle of equality, sometimes because the magistrates tried to stop them delivering their personal testimonies.  Consequently, about a quarter of the accused were sent to the cells for contempt of court. Most eventually agreed to stand but one continued to refuse and it was this issue that set the scene for the climax to the day.

 

The court had been in session from 10.30 am.  Normal practice is to finish around 4 or 4.30pm.  At 4.30, the one lone defendant was still refusing to stand for the magistrates and had already spent 5 hrs in the cells.  The magistrates had tried everything in their power to get him to stand, including removing the chair from the witness box. He simply sat down on the floor. Four times he was brought up from the cells and asked to stand up for the magistrates and four times he refused.  On the fifth time, the clerk of the court read out the formal charge of Contempt of Court in a particularly weighty and serious tone.  He emphasised that the charge carried a possible 12 month prison sentence and asked the defendant "Do you plead guilty or not guilty ...........or (lengthy pause) would you like an adjournment."  The tension in the courtroom could be cut with a knife; everyone believed he was going to receive a lengthy sentence for contempt.  In a scene reminiscent of the Monthy Python film "Life of Brian", where the Roman guard says to the prisoner "Crucifixion or cake?", he responded, "Oh I think I'd like an adjournment, please."  The clerk seized on it and shouted case adjourned; the magistrates immediately fled and the court erupted into cheering, clapping, laughing, crying, hugging as the other defendants and supporters registered their intense relief and delight. 

 

We learnt afterwards that the court officials had spent all afternoon begging and pleading with the defendant to stand up for the magistrates. They  seemed genuinely concerned that he should not end up in prison.  To us in the body of the court, it seemed certain that he would be found guilty but unbeknown to us the clerk had secretly visited him and offered him a settlement of an adjournment. His trial finally ended at 6.30 pm after 7 hrs in the cells.  

 

All Contempt charges were subsequently dropped and at his rearranged trial the magistrate simply accepted that he would not stand.