Oral Statement to Court
Thank you, Your Honour.
Short Summary
I also speak for the other defendants who put in this application. Rowan Tilly would like to join the application. (Ian Bates)
Article 6:
The Right to a fair trial
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The prosecution have pointed out (point 3 in their response):
- “Abuse of process” is a legal term, with a well described set of definitions. It arises
a. Where it will be impossible to give the defendant a fair trial, or
b. Where a stay is necessary to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system We argue that the first of these apply, and from our lay perspective it seems that the second applies also.
There are two arguments that we can’t have a fair trial, and a third argument for myself regarding the duties of a doctor.
The first two arguments are dependent on the State’s failure to act lawfully and according to its legal obligations; and the third is dependent on the failure of the General Medical Council to fulfil its statutory duties.
We will show that there is a fatal conflict of interest within the criminal justice system, which makes it impossible for us to have a fair trial and which threatens the integrity of the system itself.
The State’s failures are causing deaths and suffering now in the UK and abroad. Without immediate mitigation death as a result of climate change will inevitably increase, affecting our children and future generations. The threats are existential.
- In regard to the case for climate genocide put forward by Climate Genocide Act Now (CGAN) the implications are relatively straightforward.
CGAN submitted its dossier of evidence to the Met Police in 2019. Had the Met acted on that none of the climate related actions since then would have taken place.
CGAN spent three years trying to get the Met to explain why it wouldn’t act on the legislation (ICCA 2001). In 2023, when the legal team at the Met did explain its thinking, it was found to be flawed and the CGAN case was robust. The Met Police response was to refuse all further discussion with CGAN.
The legal concepts established by CGAN are simple:
*Article 25 of the Rome Statute tackles ‘common purpose’.
*Article 30 tackles direct intent and oblique intent.
It is clear the policies that drive climate change, causing mass death and mass suffering, and will cause the annihilation of low-lying island states, can be prosecuted using the Rome Statute brought into UK jurisdiction by International Criminal Court Act (ICCA) 2001.
Despite being shown to be acting unlawfully, the Met Police and CPS continue to disregard an act of Parliament - ICCA 2001.
Under Article 25.3(f) I and my co-defendants had an obligation to act to prevent the genocide due to the nature of our lifestyles in the UK, which inevitably results in higher than average (worldwide) fossil fuel consumption. Past flying and driving has also placed me under this obligation.
In short, the criminal justice system itself has a conflict of interest. Genocide is outlawed, but business as usual, which will result in genocide, is protected.
While this remains unresolved, we cannot have a fair trial.
- Article 3 Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
I refer the court to the argument put forward by Mr Buckley on behalf of Rowan Tilly regarding Article three ECHR, which we also put forward to this court.
It is well documented and widely recognised that moral injury is a normal reaction of some people in response to the pressing and unmitigated existential threat of climate change. Children and young people are particularly vulnerable to such moral injury. Those suffering critical moral injury cannot function and in young people their brain and physiological development are permanently affected (see Caroline Hickman’s statement and oral testimony provided in the evidence bundle). Moral injury is equivalent to torture and degrading treatment. The State unequivocally has an obligation to act to prevent the mental anguish caused by climate change by effectively stopping and reversing the damage.
All defendants are personally cognisant of the effects of moral injury, albeit not usually at the critical level. I think I can speak for all of us and say we were compelled to take action to a). relieve the known present and future suffering of others and b). to some extent combat our own suffering from moral injury by taking nonviolent direct action.
If the State had fulfilled its obligations under Article 3, we would not have had to take action ourselves.
- I have already detailed at length why the duties of a doctor eventually compelled me to participate in the Insulate Britain actions which have resulted in the two trials in question.
You will have seen that I had already tried every other option available to me before I took part in these road blocks. The rationale for participating and the efficacy of nonviolent direct action was clear to me before I made the decision.
If the General Medical Council (GMC) was fulfilling its statutory responsibilities in relation to the public health threats posed by climate change and ecocide, I would not have participated. Instead, I would have put all my efforts into helping to implement the GMC’s work. Since the Insulate Britain actions the British Medical Association has re-considered the nature of the public health threats caused by climate change and endorsed doctors taking nonviolent direct action. A Lancet paper, Bioethics for the Planet, 29 July 2025, repeats much of what I have been advocating for. The Lancet paper confirms that medical professionals need to ‘Prioritise the assessment and reduction of the carbon footprint and general environmental damage of health-care enterprises’ and ‘Empower health workers and institutions to advocate for planetary health’ and that there is a necessary role for accreditation bodies to participate in both of these actions.
The case before you is unprecedented. We acted to uphold the law, by attempting to stop crimes on the part of the State in relation to climate genocide, and failure of the State to prevent torture and degrading treatment in relation to severe psychological distress and suffering caused by the knowledge of unmitigated climate change.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion, published last month, shows clearly how States are ignoring international and common law by not acting to curtail and stop fossil fuel use, and worse, some States are allowing increased production. The ICJ clearly outlines how States may be acting unlawfully and can be held accountable. The UK government clearly comes under the category of unlawful actors. This is a strong endorsement of our position, made by unanimous decision of the world’s highest court.
Additionally, I was taking action out of duty, as a doctor. My stand is no longer an outlier: substantial sectors of the medical profession are taking up the same call for change.
It is therefore impossible to fulfil the Article 6 HRA right to fair trial and I ask that you dismiss this case.
You will note that I have sent a reply to the prosecution responses to our argument. Do I need to read that now?
I would like to add in relation to the support of my professional body, several weeks after the tribunal that assessed my fitness to practice I stood outside the GMC London headquarters with a placard. It happened to be at the time of a board meeting and GMC Chair Dame Carrie MacEwan came out personally and thanked me for what I was doing. She said that they were doing all that they could, but the Privy Council would not allow them to do more. This is why I spent some time outlining the position of the Privy Council when quoting the Medical Act 1983. You may remember that only two members of the Privy Council can make a decision on the Privy Council’s behalf. However, their decision can be overruled by either House of Parliament so that the GMC could still pursue a course more on track to fulfil their statutory obligations.
The point made in our reply to the prosecution, that a functioning democracy requiring a population that has full awareness of climate change and other existential threats, without obfuscation or greenwashing, is also necessary before the Professional Standards Authority can fulfil its proper duties.