༺ courtinglife.uk ༻

Judge's Statement

IN THE CROWN COURT SITTING AT WOOLWICH

BETWEEN:

R

-v-

DIANA WARNER AND OTHERS

RULING ON ABUSE OF PROCESS APPLICATION

  1. The Court is today concerned with one of a number of Insulate Britain cases which are currently awaiting trial at Woolwich Crown Court. This particular case concerns Diana Warner and five other co-defendants who are due to stand trial in relation to a count of public nuisance on 9 November 2026.

  2. It is right to point out that there have already been a number of prosecutions arising out of allegations of public nuisance occasioned by members of Insulate Britain in 2021. Some have resulted in guilty pleas, others have gone to trial with varying results- some defendants have been acquitted, some convicted, and, in some, juries have been undecided with the result that re-trials have been ordered.

  3. Be that as it may, the defendants in this group, led by Dr Warner, have filed a written application which, although not using this terminology, is effectively inviting the Court to stay the proceedings against them as an abuse of process. A number of documents have been filed in advance of the hearing including:

(a) A document entitled “The Article 6 right to fair trial is an absolute right” which attaches a letter addressed to Gareth Rees, Detective Chief Superintendent, dated 27 July 2023.

(b) document entitled “Evidence for the mention hearing 25.04.2025, argument that we cannot have a fair trial”

(c) A document entitled “Additional Evidence”

(d) A document entitled “Public Nuisance Insulate Britain cases, Woolwich CC. Legal Defence Arguments put forward by Dr Diana Warner”

(e) A letter from Stephen O’Brien MP, dated 2 May 2012

(f) A letter from Gregory Barker MP, dated 2 July 2012

(g) A statement filed with the Court on 23 April 2025

(h) A statement filed with the Court on 14 July 2025 along with various attachments

(i) Additional Skeleton Argument dealing with motions passed by the British Medical Association Annual Representatives Meeting and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on State’s climate change obligations

(j) Notes on CPS Statement, dated 13 August 2025

  1. I have considered the content of the aforementioned material with care. It is unnecessary to set out what each of those documents contains. I have also had the benefit of hearing oral representations from Dr Warner and from Mr Matthew on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Law

  1. It has long been recognised that the criminal courts have a duty to secure the fair treatment for those who come or are brought before them- see, for example, Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 and Beckford [1996] 1 Cr App R 94.

  2. There are two categories of case which give rise to the power of the court to stay proceedings as an abuse of process. The first is where it is impossible for the defendant to receive a fair trial. The second is where it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the particular circumstances of the case. In the first of these cases, if the court concludes that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, the court must stay the proceedings. In the second, the court is concerned to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and will grant a stay where the court concludes that in all the circumstances a trial will offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety, or will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute- see Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48 and Warren v A-G for Jersey [2011] UKPC 10.

  3. In Crawley [2014] EWCA Crim 1028, Sir Brian Leveson P observed, at para. 18, that- “…[T]here is a strong public interest in the prosecution of crime and in ensuring that those charged with serious criminal offences are tried. Ordering a stay of proceedings, which in criminal law is effectively a permanent remedy, is thus a remedy of last resort.”

  4. This latter observation is in keeping with the ethos of the Criminal Procedure Rules, the Overriding Objective of which is to deal with cases justly which includes, among other things, acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty, dealing with the parties fairly, and dealing with cases efficiently and expeditiously.

Submissions of the Parties and Conclusions

  1. The defendants assert both that they cannot have a fair trial and that it is not fair for them to be tried. With the greatest of respect to the defendants, and to the material which has been carefully put together and deployed, I have found it difficult, despite my best efforts, to understand why they say that that is so.

  2. To the extent that the material relied upon by the defendants evidences the seriousness of the climate change situation worldwide, that does not explain why the defendants cannot have a fair trial or why it is unfair for them to be tried. The assertion that the police, and indeed the criminal justice system more generally, is somehow implicit in protecting people from prosecution for their failure to combat climate change and protects those who, it is said, are causing torture of children and young adults is, on the material that I have seen, without evidential foundation. In any event, the belief, whether rightly or wrongly held, that others ought to be prosecuted, is not a reason to stay the current proceedings as an abuse of process. The material relied upon from the International Court of Justice highlights the problems caused by climate change and the need to combat it but, again, does not touch upon the issue of the fairness of trying the defendants for the offences they are said to have committed. Reliance on Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute is, with respect to the defendants, misplaced. Contrary to the assertion made by the defendants, that provision does not introduce a requirement upon individuals to act to stop the crimes of genocide and other crimes against humanity. Article 25 is concerned with the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over crimes committed by individuals. All subsection 3(f) is saying is that the Court has jurisdiction to try relevant offences of attempt but that if the individual concerned abandons their effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of it, they shall not be liable for punishment under the Statute provided that they completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

  3. Finally, to the extent that the material relied upon seeks to raise again arguments of proportionality, this issue has already been extensively canvassed and ruled upon, both within these proceedings and by the Court of Appeal in other cases, and so I say no more about it.

  4. The bottom line is this. These defendants, as with others before them, can and will have a fair trial. Nothing that has been advanced today, whether orally or in writing, suggests otherwise. Likewise, and based upon the arguments advanced today, there is nothing unfair about trying the defendants for the crimes they are alleged to have committed.

  5. Accordingly, the defendants’ application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process, sincerely argued though it was, is refused.

HHJ Grout
14 August 2025

scroll to top