Dr Diana Warner's Statement
Our Case, presented by Dr Diana Warner
DW statement to court regarding mention hearing 28.07.25
Introduction
I thank your honour for agreeing to this hearing.
I speak for myself, Ana Heyatawin, …, Diana Hekt, Steve Gower, Ian Bates and Cathy Eastburn.
This statement will take fifteen to twenty minutes to read. It covers three strands.
Firstly, we cannot have a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as argued in our email of 27 January 2025. I will bring out some main points regarding the 27 January application shortly.
Secondly, I put to you that my personal position as a registered doctor has placed me under an obligation to protect the public’s health, in view of the failure of the General Medical Council to fulfil its overriding duty to protect the public’s health as delineated in the Medical Act 1983. Evidence for this is in the bundle already sent.
Thirdly, we put forward article 3 ECHR, prohibition of torture, as stated by Mr Buckley.
I start with strand 1, pertaining to the Rome Statute.
I am grateful to Mr Buckley for his reference to international criminal law, which is brought into UK jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court Act (ICCA) 2001.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
We refer to Article 25 (Page 20) and Article 30 (Page 22).
This is brought into UK jurisdiction by virtue of the International Criminal Court Act 2001:
All signatory states to the International Criminal Court (ICC) are required to adopt legislation that encompasses the principles laid out in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That is to prevent democratically elected governments from pursuing a range of policies that lead to mass death, mass suffering and annihilation of civilian populations. In the context of climate change, that is mass death & suffering caused by the increased spread of disease in our hotter world, the increasing extremes of storm, flood & drought that kill, destroy homes, displace millions, and have begun the process of removing low-lying island states from the map.
In 2019 the campaign group Climate Genocide Act Now (CGAN) submitted its detailed dossier to The Metropolitan Police. CGAN used mainstream sources of information to prove that a range of government policies were causing the harms detailed in the legislation. The Met Police rejected the case, arguing that there had to be intent to commit the crimes for there to be any prospect of a successful prosecution. CGAN spent several years pressing The Met Police to explain why the ‘oblique intent’ provisions in Article 30 could not be used. Article 30 criminalises acts of direct intent and oblique intent. CGAN went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to force the Met to explain its thinking and, in 2023, The Directorate of Legal Services at The Met Police agreed to enter into communication.
The correspondence was conclusive - the CGAN case is robust. It established that there was no basis for rejecting Article 30.2(b) - the provision that allows for the prosecution of crimes that fall into the category of oblique intent - and Article 25 that establishes the principle of ‘common purpose’. The accused senior government ministers contribute to death and harm by a range of policies. It is impossible for the accused to achieve their personal and economic objectives without the harms occurring.
The response of the Met Police was to refuse any further discussion with CGAN.
Four pieces of correspondence are attached as examples, in addition to the 27 July 2023 letter already copied to the court: Letter of 03 April 2023 from CGAN; letter of 25 April 2023 from the Director of Legal Services; letter of 29 April 2023 from CGAN presenting the flaws in the 25 April letter; email from Directorate of legal services dated 31 July 2023 announcing the Directorate would not respond to further correspondence airing the same issues.
All other correspondence can be accessed at climatecriminals. We will be happy to answer questions concerning any of the correspondence.
Had the Met Police upheld the law and acted on the dossier of evidence in 2019, the seven accused would not have taken the steps they did. It is highly likely that none of the climate actions associated with groups like XR, JSO and Insulate Britain would have taken place. Government Ministers would have been told that, if they maintained their current range of policies, they would be charged and prosecuted. Had government stopped what they were doing and followed the urgent recommendations to mitigate climate change made by the Climate Change Committee and others, none of the defendants, in any climate related action, would have taken the step they did. There would have been no need to do so.
Despite CGAN proving its case, the Met Police refuse to uphold the law. They continue to protect those who kill. On the other hand, the Police arrest and charge those who try peacefully to stop the mass death and suffering that are the direct and inevitable result of government policies. The CPS has been repeatedly informed of what is happening and yet that department continues to prosecute those who seek to uphold the law.
And that is a crucial point - it is the defendants who uphold the law!
Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute introduces a requirement upon individuals to act to stop the crimes of genocide (the annihilation of low-lying island states) and other crimes against humanity. Unlike the other provisions within Articles 25 and 30 I have already mentioned, Article 25.3(f) is open to interpretation but it is important that the court understands that there is a legal requirement to attempt to stop the crimes.
We defendants act to uphold the law. The Met Police and CPS have refused to act on legislation enacted by Parliament specifically for the purpose of stopping a democratically elected government from causing mass harm and death. The Met Police, and surely the CPS too, know they are acting unlawfully.
It is impossible to have a fair trial in a case where, for many years, the entire criminal justice system has protected the killers and prosecuted those trying peacefully to stop the killing. There are legal obligations upon the defendants to take steps to stop the harms - it is we, the defendants who uphold the law.
Strand 2
Judges and lawyers are trained to abstain from groundless extrapolation. In that, they resemble medical doctors and scientists. However, in my experience the resemblance ends there. Those with legal expertise in court may have limited understanding of the rigour of the scientific method and limited understanding of how scientific knowledge is shared, including interpretation of results. This is having catastrophic consequences because many judges in UK courts are failing to understand the nature and relevance of the climate and environmental upheavals happening now.
I have put together a lengthy bundle in an attempt to bridge the gap between scientists and those who are legally trained. I use my knowledge of the law, having taken expert advice, to show how science is relevant to law and how vitally important it is to take the science into account when deciding whether or not we can have a fair trial by law. I will be selective in my references to the bundle for the purposes of my statement. The bundle is largely for reference and will back up every fact included in this statement. Because I believe I am breaking new ground in criminal courts, I have provided substantial evidence in the bundle and will be happy to be questioned on it. It is not designed to be a defence bundle. The purpose of the bundle is to inform strategy.
In relation to my personal duties as a UK registered doctor, I refer to the Medical Act 1983 (p8 of bundle). The Medical Act describes the duties and oversight of the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC is referred to as the General Council within the Act.
Part 1(A) of the Act states that “the over-arching objective of the General Council is protection of the public”, and part 1(B) specifies protection of the public in pursuit of the following objectives:
(a) to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public,
(b) to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and
(c) to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that Profession.
The Act describes the GMC’s leadership and oversight roles in terms of medical education (p9 of bundle); licence to practise and revalidation (29A, p10); and in terms of maintaining medical ethics (p12).
I draw your attention to Section 29J of the Act (p10), especially part (3) which states that:
(3) “Regulations under section 29A above may make different provision for different purposes, cases or circumstances”.
The GMC has shown that it is capable of overseeing largescale changes in medical practice during the course of my career, for example in regard to safeguarding children and vulnerable adults and in relation to accountability and revalidation.
This part of my case rests on the fact that overwhelming threats to public health, safety and well-being come from climate change, environmental destruction, and pollution. These threats are present and increasing, and are well documented by both scientists and medical professionals. The dangers are and were immediate and action to protect the public’s health and wellbeing need and needed to be carried out immediately. Strategies have been thoroughly researched, formulated and proposed that will protect the public’s health, safety and well-being. The strategies have been advocated by various sections of the medical profession at home and abroad.
All these are evidenced in my bundle and in the earlier documents sent to court before the postponement of trials.
However, the strategies while carefully formulated lack a coherent method to put into practise and require the regulatory body, the GMC, to take action to catalyse change.
It is incumbent on the GMC, as defined in their duty to protect the public, to start the process of making different provision in the healthcare setting in regard to the large scale threats to public health and safety caused by climate change, pollution and environmental destruction.
Parts 4 and 5 of 29J state how to go about formulating the different provision through consultation with stakeholders and gaining approval of the Privy Council.
There is acknowledgement within the Act that the Privy Council powers are limited. Section 51(2) states that an order of the Privy Council can be overruled by either House of Parliament (P14).
However, the GMC has failed to act in accordance with the statutory obligations outlined above.
Concerted efforts I have personally made to apply to the GMC requesting the GMC to review its policies have also failed. Some are documented in the bundle (pp 63-84), along with other attempts I’ve made to understand and influence policy in more general terms.
The duties of the GMC were effectively passed down to me as a registered doctor through the Good Medical Practice guidelines 2013 (p4-7 of bundle). These were the guidelines operative in 2021, with some minor changes made in 2020 which do not affect this case.
By my actions taken with Insulate Britain on 27 September and 01 October 2021, I was fulfilling my duties as a doctor. I had taken the next and logical step to participate in carefully considered nonviolent direct action, all other measures to protect life and the public’s health safety and wellbeing having failed.
It was my duty to act immediately to protect life, in view of the immediacy of the threats.
Under these circumstances I cannot have a fair trial.
Strand 3
The dangers to life and health are not only physical but also psychological and, in respect of children and young people, detrimental to their long-term development into well-adjusted and healthy adults. The adverse psychological and developmental effects on health come under my remit as a registered doctor and former GP no less than the adverse physical effects.
Caroline Hickman’s evidence (bundle pp 25-37 and 38-54) outlines in some detail the psychological distress or anguish that frequently results from governments and others in authority, including doctors (p 51), failing to take adequate action to mitigate climate change. Ms Hickman outlines physical and physiological effects on children and adolescents as a result of direct and indirect adverse childhood events caused by climate change, and describes in more detail their vulnerability to psychological distress and to developmental damage (p 30, c 1-3). It is the duty of doctors to address these psychological and physical effects on health by pursuing a course that will help to mitigate the causes. This also falls under the duty to maintain patients’ confidence in the profession.
However, responsibility for the psychological and developmental damage to our children and young people from climate change and its consequences does not stop with doctors.
Caroline Hickman’s evidence speaks to the mental torture resulting from climate change and, more specifically, the mental torture that results from gross negligence and failure of authorities to take action to mitigate climate change. Instead, many policies previously and currently being pursued aggravate the effects and increase carbon pollution. Affected children and young people understand this well.
Health professionals are using the term ‘moral injury’ (p31 d i-iv) to name what is described as “institutional betrayal which is a distressing psychological experience when a person feels that actions have been taken that violate your human rights, morals, and core beliefs (Weintrobe, 2021) and seen as a normal human response to an abnormal traumatic event”. Ms Hickman delineates a sequence of experienced effects ranging from mild to critical (p 32-34).
The psychological traumas described by Caroline Hickman and others as moral injury amounts to mental torture as described by Mr Buckley and is prohibited under article 3. The state is failing its obligations under article 3 to investigate these serious allegations of torture.
I submit that all these considerations must be put before the jury if there is to be a fair trial. With this knowledge the jury would not find us guilty. Instead, there will be widespread demand for serious mitigation measures that would help secure the public’s safety and health.
Suggested Closing
The issues raised are of utmost importance, vital to human life and health and to human civilisation.
A whole host of man-made factors are currently working against human life and survival. This is not an exaggeration.
As far as I am aware, these issues have not been aired in this way in a UK criminal court before and so demand serious attention.
The case of Majera vs Secretary of State for the Home Department (iksc-2020-0008) has demonstrated that a judge’s ruling in court cannot be overruled without going through either the due process of appeal, or the process of changing the law in Westminster.
This is a chance for Your Honour to pass an important judgement that can help efforts to save lives.
I ask that in the course of your published judgement you make pronouncements in relation to all arguments we have set out: our responsibilities in regard to climate genocide; the responsibilities of the GMC in particular and of doctors in general toward the health threats incurred by climate change; and on the application of Article 3.
Thank you
I affirm that to the best of my knowledge all information detailed here is correct.
Dr Diana Warner MBBS