courtinglife.uk | Reply to Response

Reply to Response

Notes on CPS statement Five pages as sent

I thank the CPS for providing their responses.

The relevant correspondence I have sent to court and to CPS by email are:

My bundle of evidence, uploaded to the digital record on or after 18 June 25 by Mr Buckley. This is the evidence for my argument that I acted to fulfil my duties as a medically qualified doctor, based on The Medical Act 1983 and Good Medical Practice guidelines current in 2021.
Statement of the argument sent to court 14 July 25, plus the two motions passed by the British Medical Association on 25th June in support of doctors who participate in nonviolent direct action; the four selected letters and the facts for reference to back up the argument concerning climate genocide.
The document sent 31 July 25 pertaining to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion Please can the prosecution check that they address all the above?

Specific notes re Prosecution response

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.

CPS

“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

Our arguments cover both 3a and 3b

The totality of our arguments address the assertion that the criminal justice system itself has a conflict of interest. Genocide and crimes against humanity are offences under ICCA 2001, but despite CGAN proving its case was robust, and the Metropolitan Police thinking was critically flawed, to this day the criminal justice system refuses to uphold ICCA 2001. The Metropolitan Police continues to protect those who contribute to genocide and crimes against humanity from prosecution. We also argue that the criminal justice system is protecting those who are causing torture of children and young adults, contrary to Article three ECHR.

At a minimum, both these issues need to be addressed by the courts before we can have a fair trial.

5 I refer the CPS to my statement sent to the court and to the CPS on 14 July, where I summarise the case. The email went to both email addresses I hold for the CPS relevant to the IB cases and to Woolwich CC.

Neither of the above two arguments in my statement are addressed by the prosecution. Instead they are erroneously dismissed ‘as an attempt to side step’ previous rulings. The Prosecution has failed to mention our arguments under the Rome Statute or Article 3 ECHR.

The prosecution needs to note that this hearing was called by Judge Grout to evaluate the argument that we cannot have a fair trial under the Rome Statute. In preparing the argument for the hearing, we found that Article 3 ECHR also applies.

6 To the best of our knowledge, no application by climate protesters similar to this has been heard in the criminal court system before.

The International Court of Justice Advisory Order published 23.07,25, already supplied to court, sets out how the framework of established international and common law should be applied to keep global heating below 1.5C, which all States are committed to. This backs up our argument and can be applied when the Judge gives his ruling. The Advisory Order calls out to be applied in court.

7 Delay is not a part of the request for a stay at this time.

8 a. The large amount of documentation in my bundle of evidence was sent to justify the argument that as a doctor I had to act. The bulk consists of analysis of The Medical Act 1983 and Good Medical Practice guidelines. I also gave some information concerning medical history as example of inertia within the medical profession costing lives because the medical profession resists change ; and the documentation regarding climate change was from medical publications to prove that climate change is a public health emergency. Caroline Hickman’s full statement and oral testimony together with references, given to my fitness to practice tribunal, speaks to the Article 3 argument.

b We challenge the assertion that the UK is a functioning democracy. A functioning democracy depends on a well-informed public. To take one example, we do not live in a functioning democracy if the vast majority of people have absolutely no idea of the grave risk they will soon be starving to death or how the risk can be minimised:

In November 2024 the National Preparedness Commission published a report on AMOC collapse that warned: “temperatures would drop across the Atlantic region, including by over 5C in Britain. Colder, drier conditions would largely wipe out crop growing in the British Isles.”

See: Complacency on Climate

Already dealt with above.
The GMC

a. Note that the GMC is the regulator. It is not to be confused with doctors’ professional body.

Of the GMC Council six are doctors and six lay members GMC Council

The Chief Executive and Senior Management team are a team of seven people, one of whom is a doctor and the others came from government or industry GMC Chief Executive

The GMC does not have the support of the main doctors’ union, the BMA, or the smaller union DAUK. Both have called for a new regulator BMA Support for New Regulator

b. In fact, in so far as the BMA represents my professional body, they have stated their support of doctors who break the law undertaking nonviolent action. Motions 24 and 48, passed on day 2 of this year’s annual representative meeting, supplied on 14 July.

c. The GMC made their ruling that my fitness to practice was impaired by bringing the profession into disrepute, because they had no choice but to take the trial judges’ decisions at face value. Therefore, to argue that the tribunal had found my fitness to practice impaired negates my argument that I had to act out of professional duty, is a circular argument.

d. No evidence was brought to tribunal that I would have damaged patients’ trust in me or in the profession. That is why the tribunal’s statement was phrased in such uncertain terms. On the contrary, many patients had spontaneously written to the tribunal to state that their trust was increased by my actions.

The GMC’s own research indicates that patients are more interested in whether the criminal behaviour harmed another person or ‘whether the criminal behaviour had the potential to affect the doctor’s ability to practise safely and effectively, whether there was a pattern of criminal behaviour, or whether the behaviour suggested the doctor was dishonest, aggressive or deceitful in character. A conviction and sentence had no more of an effect on public expectations of regulatory action than the criminal act and the circumstances surrounding it’. GMC Report

That the panel’s concern about my fitness to practice was minimal was demonstrated by the short period of suspension – three months, and the fact that I was reinstated automatically, without a review.

e. I draw your attention to a bioethics paper published in The Lancet 29 July 2025 which contains much of what I have been advocating for The Lancet article

It also mentions that the active participation of regulators is necessary. However there is a gulf between publishing papers and achieving large scale action. Large scale action requires all types of actors, including doctors undertaking nonviolent direct action, to work in that space. That there is a need for doctors to participate in nonviolent direct action is now recognised by many doctors and is expressed in the two motions passed at the BMA Annual Representatives Meeting.

Additional note: It takes huge effort to get a product or technological process known to be harmful to be banned. Lead, tobacco and asbestos are examples used below, but I could cite many more. The judiciary in its entirety has a pivotal role to make sure that we are safe from such harms. This hearing is an important opportunity to decide for health and safety. Lead Exposure

This is comparable with Lead where we had lead pipes, lead toys, lead paint, even leaded petrol. We now know its effect on brain development reduced average IQs[1], increased crime [2]. Its effects on the rest of the body caused deaths, particularly in children[3]. It took an amazing effort to get lead banned. In the US the lead association was formed purely to fight the coming ban on lead and protect profits[4]

A similar thing happened with Asbestos[5] and is happening with Tobacco[6]. Globally millions probably died unnecessarily (and illegally) because there was profit to be made. The law struggled to deal with each of these mass poisoning events[7][8][9][10]. We are at the biggest mass poisoning point in human history. It is widely agreed this is an existential threat to the entire human species, (& many other species). How can a species destroying activity be legal?

Dr Diana Warner
On behalf of all the named defendants
13.08.2025

༺ courtinglife.uk ༻

Reply to Response