༺ courtinglife.uk ༻

Prosecution Response

IN THE WOOLWICH CROWN COURT

THE KING
-v-
Diana Warner
Ana Heyatawin
Rowan Tilly
Diana Hekt
Lucy Crawford
Steven Gower

PROSECUTION RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY.

  1. Defendants make applications for a stay on the grounds that their prosecution for acts of public nuisance blocking major roads as part a campaign is an abuse of the process.

Generally.

  1. The remedy for an abuse of the process is a stay of proceedings.

  2. “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

Neither of those two set of circumstances has arisen in these proceedings.

Fair trial and integrity of the criminal justice system.

  1. A fair trial remains possible, not least because the trial process itself can take account of all relevant factors, including delay.

  2. No act or omission of the prosecution is identified by the applicant that could remotely require the court to act to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system. Each of the defendants is being prosecuted for a well defined offence, on properly obtained evidence, and by the prescribed procedures.

  3. Additionally, cases of similar climate protestors have been considered in the Court of Appeal, with sentences confirmed or appeals allowed in part, but without any concern from the Court about the propriety of the prosecutions.

Delay

  1. In so far as the defendants rely upon delay this court is bound to follow the ruling in R v S  [2006] EWCA Crim 756 and the 5 judge Court of Appeal in CPS v F [2011] EWCA Crim 1844, to this effect:

In the light of the authorities, the correct approach for a judge to whom an application for a stay for abuse of process on the ground of delay is made, is to bear in mind the following principles:

(i) Even where delay is unjustifiable, a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule;

(ii) Where there is no fault on the part of the complainant or the prosecution, it will be very rare for a stay to be granted;

(iii) No stay should be granted in the absence of serious prejudice to the defence so that no fair trial can be held;

(iv) When assessing possible serious prejudice, the judge should bear in mind his or her power to regulate the admissibility of evidence and that the trial process itself should ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury for their consideration in accordance with appropriate direction from the judge;

(v) If, having considered all these factors, a judge’s assessment is that a fair trial will be possible, a stay should not be granted

Failure to distinguish between lawful and unlawful protest.

  1. A large quantity of material has been served in support of the applications to stay. Much, if not all of it, focuses on the urgency and obligation of government action to prevent or ameliorate climate change. In a functioning democracy none of the concerns expressed provide a defence of either justification or necessity (or any defence akin to those defences) to unlawful acts in support of protest.

  2. The absence of those defences has been confirmed in two fully argued Preparatory Hearings in these proceedings. The application for a stay is an attempt to side step those rulings.

GMC

  1. Dr Warner relies additionally on her duties as a registered medical doctor. Her view of the duty is not shared by her professional body. Dr Warner had her licence to practice suspended by the GMC’s medical practitioner’s tribunal in August 2024 for taking part in what she described as peaceful acts of civil resistance. The tribunal disagreed with her, finding instead that she potential brought her profession into disrepute and found that her decision to take part in unlawful action may lead some patients to question her judgement and therefore it may damage patients’ trust in her as a medical practitioner. It is, again, not protest itself, but unlawful acts in support of protests that has caused her difficulty.

David Matthew

Counsel for the prosecution.

12 August 2025.

scroll to top