Michael was brought in to appeal a sentence for kidnap, GBH, and blackmail. He was successful at the Court of Appeal. The family of AK described him as “uniquely skillful.” The outcome was described as, “the best result humanly possible.”

The mother of the client, UE, was told by others that her son was looking at “a minimum of 10 years. Michael arrived at court very confident and walked away with seven years which was a huge result.”

Michael overturned convictions for violence and sexual conduct of KA. Who described him as the “best defence barrister in the country.” He added Michael was always approachable and listened to him carefully.

SR was a young man who was facing serious allegations. His sister wrote that, “from the very beginning Michael has been absolutely incredible. He is a true gentleman, easy to communicate with, kind, compassionate, and patient. He makes a stressful time a whole lot easier. The outcome Michael achieved was a miracle. He is so passionate in Court. His speeches are extremely powerful.”

AS was charged with serious offences of violence. He described the proceedings as, “one of the scariest and most traumatic events of his life. Your hard work has given me an outcome that I thought would never happen. From the first time we spoke, I knew you would do everything you could for me. You are without doubt the best barrister ever, incredibly skilled, and knowledgeable. You are also witty, charming and a really lovely man.”

MO was facing allegations of complex criminal conduct; he was “very pleased and impressed with how Michael was able to understand, and sympathise with, what was an incredibly complicated matter. He is an exceptionally easy person to communicate with and his character is that of a pure gentleman.”

EA was involved in a complicated foreign property dispute. The client described Michael as, “one of the best criminal barristers in the UK, who is fastidious in his preparation, exacting in his advice, and gives a measured and honest opinion. He is uniquely supportive, polite, and utterly professional.”

LS was caught by allegations against her partner. She was implicated with accusations involving substantial drugs and money. The grateful client described Michael as, “a godsend whose professionalism is second to none. His manner is so gentlemanly and compassionate that it will calm the most anxiety ridden sufferer.”

LA faced allegations of serious sexual misconduct. “Michael sorted out the case in no time and it was closed swiftly and efficiently.”

TR was on trial for GBH with intent and malicious wounding. The client feared 10 years in prison, but was acquitted of all charges. The client observed that Michael “presented his flawless cleverly worded closing defence speech with the jury on the edge of their seats. Prosecutor looked like he wanted to crawl into his shell.”

AN was charged with burglary and criminal damage. He was further charged with biting the arresting officer. He pleaded guilty to all these matters. Michael persuaded the judge not to send him to prison.

DC was charged with multiple stabbing of his mother’s new partner. The ‘victim’ was exposed in cross-examination as an unpleasant and aggressive bully. The jury acquitted very quickly.

DW was charged with demanding money with menaces. The defendant was formerly a marine and then was active in the Special Services. He was paid to track down a man alleged to owe his client money. He located the so-called victim after surveillance via tracking devices and secret photographing of family including children and grandchildren. He then made an approach, allegedly leaving one man ‘petrified’. He asked for $32million. After cross-examination by Michael which destroyed the credibility of the ‘victim’ the jury acquitted in just a few minutes.

The mother of JS, the defendant said, “Michael will find all the answers he needs before his questioning and woe betide the person who is unprepared for his relentless pursuit of the truth.”

GR, a student was accused of GBH on a police officer. This man reviews the acquittal of his son, describing Michael as his son’s “guardian angel, who gave reassurance throughout the months before the trial.” He further said that “Michael was inspirational throughout the court hearing, and we watched in awe when he was on his feet.” He added that, “there is no doubt this exceptional and caring man has a divine presence in court.”

RM was a taxi driver and pleaded guilty to a series of increasingly serious sex offences committed against various passengers, including a number of rapes. However, Michael persuaded the trial Judge that the Defendant was not ‘dangerous’ and accordingly he avoided harsher sentencing provisions. The prosecution, led by the Solicitor General, then appealed the sentence to the Court of Appeal, arguing it was ‘unduly lenient’ but again Michael argued successfully and the sentence was untouched.

IH was charged with dealing in and retaining money from crime. The evidence proved he purchased a money counting machine and he had £130,000 in cash when the police searched his home and car. The jury unanimously acquitted him.

MB was charged with an affray which featured him biting off the ear of one of his victims. CCTV showed him ‘hugging the victim’ and baring his teeth. The ear then lay on the ground at their feet. Michael persuaded the Judge that the Court could not be certain that he caused the injury and the defendant received a suspended sentence rather than the several years’ imprisonment expected.

JS was embroiled in an all-out family ‘war’ and was charged with both attacking his wife and causing GBH to his father-in-law. In a very bitter trial, he was speedily acquitted.

MM strangled his wife under the delusion that she had abused their son. He continued to assert this but only prolonged and delicate negotiation led to the prosecution accepting a plea of manslaughter. They had started with the strong view that he was faking mental health problems.

AE was accused of sexual attacks and consistent misconduct towards his sister-in-law over a long period of years, starting as long ago as the 1980s. She and other members of the family claimed he confessed many times and tapes were made of him admitting and apologising for the crimes. He pleaded not guilty saying every allegation was fabricated. Michael cross-examined the complainant and all supporting family members. The jury then acquitted AE on all counts after just a few minutes considering their verdicts.

A young man was convicted of sex offences. Michael was instructed to consider a sentence appeal. Michael was confident he could get the sentence reduced. The trial solicitors said there was no chance. The trial barrister said there was no chance. The single judge at the Court of Appeal considered there were no grounds. Michael fought the full court and won the appeal, achieving a significant reduction in sentence.

X was charged with the rape of a teenage girl. He had ‘enticed’ her into his car and driven to a secluded lane. He had been tried and convicted of this allegation and served some months in prison before he instructed Michael. Following a successful appeal, he was released on bail and awaited a retrial before all charges were dropped and he was formally acquitted.

MH was charged with raping a 16 year old girl. He left the country within days of the incident and was only tried five years later. The jury took just one hour to clear him.

SD was charged with possession of explosives, possession of a regulated chemical, and other offences. Michael persuaded the prosecution to proceed on a single matter and persuaded the judge to grant an Absolute Discharge.

The Court of Appeal reduced the prison sentence for a commercial drug dealer.

DK faced charges of drugs, firearms, and money laundering. Michael achieved his immediate release.

JH was a teenager who discharged a disguised taser in a crowded nightclub. Michael managed to persuade the Court of Appeal to reduce for ‘exceptional reasons’ the statutory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment to one of three years instead.

Michael argued that legal directions given by the trial judge to the jury had been in error. The Court of Appeal quashed all the convictions.

GD was found in possession of thousands of indecent images, hundreds in the worst category. He also shared images of his granddaughter on a foreign site. Michael persuaded the Judge not to send him to prison.

Dr. X was alleged to have slapped a former partner after harassing and stalking him over some months since the end of their relationship.

The Court of Appeal was persuaded to take four years off the sentence of a man who burned to death a family gang rival.

AC was accused of nine sexual offences against his own adopted daughter, said to have been committed over her teenage years. He was speedily found not guilty of all charges by the jury in Lincoln

OK was one of six defendants accused of being members of a notorious ‘sex-ring’ with the victim an underage girl. OK was named as committing the most serious offences of all of them. After a six week trial at Oxford Crown Court, he was acquitted of all six charges he faced. These had included rape in the presence of the girl’s baby.

OU was accused of a serious sex crime. Conviction would have ruined his professional and personal reputation and lost him his business. The relieved defendant said on acquittal, “I am so grateful to Michael for his total preparation before trial and his total performance at Court”.

Michael represented a defendant charged with cocaine supply. The Judge passed a sentence of two years and six months immediate imprisonment. Michael responded immediately and addressed the court again. He persuaded the Judge to change his sentence to two years, fully suspended.

Exceptional sentence passed in firearms case. PA had stored a revolver and live ammunition in his home. The law demands a minimum five year sentence. Michael ‘demanded’ and achieved a suspended sentence.

JD, a young man, was alleged to have deliberately driven at a man in his 70s, a cancer sufferer. A large number of witnesses claimed he lined his car up to hit the victim who was thrown onto JD’s bonnet. He was speedily acquitted.

In a high profile case with widespread national coverage, Michael acted for JM, a former partner of the convicted paedophile rock musician Ian Watkins. Over years in which they were in an on-off relationship, they shared admittedly indecent photographs, and filmed themselves having sex together and discussing how to kidnap, abuse and even kill babies and children. Watkins was later sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment. Michael argued the defence that JM had ‘legitimate reasons’ for her actions, that she was trying to incriminate Watkins so he would be arrested. Most unusually in law, the Burden of Proof was on the Defendant, she had to show her account was likely to be true. The Jury acquitted her of all seven charges she had faced.

Read the Guardian article about Michael’s representation of the acquitted Defendant.

On the same day as the case above, just 30 mins later, came the decision that the prosecution would not proceed with charges against a bank employee alleged to have made threats to kill one of her bosses. The prosecution also claimed she had made repeated bomb hoaxes that emptied the building and caused city wide disruption. Michael submitted argument that the evidence was not safe to link her with the offences.

Michael had been acting for more than a year to persuade the CPS and police to drop an investigation against a lawyer suspected of giving false evidence in a criminal trial. The news of their favourable decision appeared in an email 10 minutes after the phone call in the previous two successful cases – three successes in one day!

Michael represented SM, a solicitor, who had been convicted at a trial and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The appeal prepared by the trial lawyers was rejected and then Michael took over. He persuaded the court to grant leave and then argued the appeal itself. The conviction was quashed and SM released.

X was accused of breaking into the home of his former girlfriend, strangling and assaulting her. She claimed he threatened to rape her. The jury saw photos of her facial and neck injuries. They also saw her ripped underwear. On arrest, X threw himself over a balcony in a suicide attempt. Michael cross-examined the complainant, presenting the defence that she had invited X in and that all contact, including the strangling, was with her consent. The jury found the defendant ‘not guilty’ after just 30 minutes of deliberation.

Michael represented a promising Bar student who was offended by a man who barged by him outside a nightclub. AR chased after the man and pushed him in the back. The man’s friend, an off-duty police officer, grabbed hold of AR, who swung a marvellous punch and knocked him down, breaking his cheekbone. AR weighed eight stone; the policeman weighed 16 stone. Michael argued self-defence to both charges and the jury acquitted.

SF was sentenced at the Crown Court for assaulting a former partner of his mother. He inflicted serious wounds in an attack with punches, kicks and the use of a hammer. His family approached Michael to appeal the sentence. The Court of Appeal accepted his argument that the judge had paid insufficient attention to the family history and reduced the sentence by two years

FG was charged with theft of a watch. He was filmed on CCTV at a gym taking the property, zipping it into his bag and leaving the area. This sort of ‘small’ case can be of great importance to a defendant. It is not only good character and reputation at stake but also the ability to travel abroad on business. Such cases must be won. He explained that he was moving the property for safety and was acquitted in 30 minutes.

This man was convicted of three counts of rape in 2011 when other counsel acted for him. He served 13 months in prison until Michael won his appeal and he was granted bail. At the retrial, Michael ‘totally destroyed’ the evidence of the complainant and the jury speedily found TG ‘not guilty’. The conviction had naturally led to the loss of his sensitive employment and the ruin of his reputation. The acquittal, when Michael became involved, gave him some chance to rebuild his life.

X was charged with attempted murder of a 93 year old after repeatedly stabbing him in the face. Michael obtained psychiatric evidence and the court held a special hearing at which the defendant was found unfit to be tried. He was released with a supervision order.

Physiotherapist allowed back into practice. Michael acted for a suspended practitioner. The authority opposed his return to practice, arguing he had been acting in ‘flagrant breach’ of their order. Michael persuaded the panel that the evidence against him was unreliable.

WA acquitted of firearms and threats to kill. Michael defended a man accused by relatives of brandishing a gun at them and on different days threatening to kill them. Michael exposed the real background that the relatives owed a considerable amount of money and were making false allegations to avoid repayment. After an ‘abuse’ argument, the prosecution offered no evidence and WA was acquitted with costs.

Michael called new evidence before the Court of Appeal who quashed the conviction of a police sergeant who had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for three counts of rape

The Owner and CEO of Grays Athletic soccer club, Andy Swallow, was acquitted of conspiracy to cause violent disorder. The prosecution alleged that he attended a cup match between Dagenham and Milwall in order to orchestrate an attack on the away fans. They relied on earlier film of him mocking and provoking Milwall fans and then leading a large group out of the match only seven minutes into the second half. The game ended in a boring 0-0 draw. The trial ended in a clear win for the defence.

AW with a single punch left V permanently damaged. His defence was that he approached to help after V had been subject to homophobic abuse. AW was greeted with threats and spat at. He “feared for his life” and punched in self-defence, believing V was about to assault him.

Michael acted for MM, as Arsenal fan who travelled to Liverpool for the Anfield match the next day. At a nightclub in the early hours, there was a running argument between a number of Arsenal fans and another London man. MM’s defence was that he acted only as a ‘peacemaker’. The victim was punched to the floor, then kicked to death, but MM had intervened only to try to stop the fight. Michael had to deal with further prosecution evidence of MM filmed in the back of a taxi straight afterwards, where he appeared to be gloating over the incident. MM was speedily acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.

AA was charged with diverting a case and fees to his father’s immigration firm. He did not notify his employer. The jury took minutes to acquit.

Michael acted for the first defendant of nine accused of a revenge killing, after his client had a falling-out with his employer. GR was alleged to have recruited a gang who, armed with guns and knives, burst into the employer’s home and attacked him and others there. After Michael cross-examined the main witness, a long legal argument followed and led the prosecution to offer no further evidence. GR was acquitted.

Michael acted for DD, charged with murder. Witnesses said he called the victim and threatened him. DD was showing off a knife, and demonstrated how he would stab the other man. He then went round to the victim’s flat and, in the ensuing fight, he stabbed him to death. Michael cross-examined the first witnesses to such effect that he was able to persuade the prosecution and court that there was no proof he had taken the knife to the scene, and avoid the 25 year tariff.

Better still, Michael also persuaded them to accept a manslaughter plea. A Goodyear indication of eight and a half years was further reduced, after mitigation, to eight years. This left the defendant to serve 4, a result 21 years better that could have been expected.

Tony Discipline, who plays Tyler Moon in the popular soap, was acquitted of one count of GBH and another of ABH after a nightclub incident. The first complainant alleged that the actor attacked him without any justification, and his jaw was broken in two places. The other man alleged that Discipline punched him twice. Michael cross-examined each witness with such effect that the Judge stopped the case because their evidence was exposed as contradictory and unreliable.

The defendant publicly thanked Michael describing him as: “the magnificent, articulate, larger-than-life barrister“

Levi Walker was a member of the Midlands gang, the Raiders. He was convicted in 2008 of the shooting execution of a drug-dealing competitor called Kevin Nunes. He was sentenced to Life Imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years. The crime was described by the judge as “a brutal execution, a barbaric murder”. The victim’s body had four bullets and his skull had been fractured with nine blows. Michael was instructed in the Appeal from 2009 and the following years involved the gradual destruction of the prosecution case at trial. Significant police misconduct was exposed and the main trial witness for the prosecution was shown to be wholly unreliable. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and agreed that there would not be a re-trial.

This was a notable acquittal against DNA odds of 1,000 billion to one.

In 2005, the body of a sex worker was found in the undergrowth of woods in the red light district of Liverpool. She had been viciously beaten and strangled. The investigation was of great local notoriety, with a serial confessor once charged and then silence for the following years until a cold case review.

A match was now made between DNA recovered from her blouse where it had been ripped open, a bandage on her ankles where she had been dragged into the woods, and crucially on her fingernails. A ‘scientific breakthrough’ allowed the prosecution to present the overwhelming probability that the traces came from David Butler. The scientific evidence was heard over five days, with Michael challenging the validity of the Professor’s model, and, in any event, relying on innocent transfer to explain the findings if they were accurate.

The victim had boasted in the weeks before of stealing £30 from a taxi driver, and the prosecution claimed that the defendant, a cabbie, had driven his distinctive striped taxi in the area that evening as seen on CCTV. By the close of the evidence the defence secured an admission that he was not the driver at the time. See Daily Telegraph Article

The defendant SM, represented by Michael Wolkind QC who had been instructed by James Saunders, was accused of cruelty offences against his stepson, aged 10, his own daughter aged five and his own son aged two. The wide-ranging allegations included a campaign against his stepson which lasted many years. The prosecution asserted that he pushed the boy’s head under water every day, sometimes after he was pulled out of bed in the middle of the night. He was also said to have severely beaten the boy. The case against him concerning his daughter alleged that he forced her to look at entirely inappropriate sexual and violent images and videos. There were further allegations of shameful sexual misconduct concerning both the older children. He was also said to have smacked his youngest child so hard that he left a bruise beneath the boy’s nappy.

The two elder children gave extensive and hostile evidence against their father but were cross-examined by Michael in a way that led to the collapse of many of the allegations. The defence presented was that SM’s wife, along with her parents and other relatives, fabricated all the accusations as revenge for an affair he had conducted.

The Judge withdrew some of the counts and the jury very speedily acquitted on all remaining matters. The Judge then made a defence costs order.

Michael represented Ian Puddick, who had very publicly campaigned after he discovered his wife’s eight year secret affair with her City businessman boss. Puddick set up camp opposite Parliament, frequently exposed the matter at Speaker’s Corner, and launched a series of websites. Some of the sites reproduced love-letters, others attacked the businessman for falsifying his expenses during the affair, and he also claimed a high-level conspiracy between the police and a powerful elite security company.

Michael argued “the right to shout ‘liar’ in a crowded chat-room”. He also memorably declared that “Ian Puddick was unwilling to take it lying down unlike, sadly, his wife did throughout the affair”.

During the trial he cross-examined the other man, suggesting the level of harassment he had really suffered was simply the same as “a burglar feels when he is caught by the police”.

Puddick was acquitted with his costs awarded.

Michael represented LH who had a long running feud with a woman whom she was accused of threatening, attacking with a hammer and then finally arranging for her murder. She was shot at on her doorstep. Clear evidence of motive, together with eye-witness and forensic findings, combined to make a strong case against LH. Michael made preliminary submissions on disclosure which led to the prosecution offering no further evidence on any charge and she was thereby acquitted and awarded costs.

Michael represented H, a physiotherapist, who treated a female patient and was accused of deliberately exposing her and touching her intimately. Michael cross-examined her fully and she made important concessions about the possibility of innocent touching. The expert panel unanimously cleared him of all charges.

Michael acted for the boss of a building firm charged with the manslaughter of one of his employees. Two of his workers were sent to repair the roof of a bedding store. They did not wear harnesses, were not attached by landyards to safe anchorage points, nor was any netting used. They had not received any specific training for working at heights. The firm had been audited and warned in the preceding months that they were in breach of numerous Health and Safety regulations.

One of the men crashed through a skylight, falling through a false ceiling below, and onto the floor of the shop. Michael presented the defence that the defendant’s failings were not the cause of the death and fell short of being ‘grossly negligent’ in any event.

After a trial lasting a month at Birmingham Crown Court, the jury took just a few hours to find this defendant not guilty of a shooting. The prosecution claimed he was stretched out of a passenger window of a car speeding at 90 mph and fired a revolver or other handgun across the roof. Michael presented a case that this man was demonstrably innocent. Instead, he and the others in his car, were themselves the victim of armed criminals. The criminals had been trying to murder them but instead shot unconnected teenagers in a third vehicle.

After his third trial for a gang shooting murder, Richard Harrison-Allen was finally acquitted after just a few hours’ deliberation by a jury. The killing took place back in 2007 and the defendant, known as Scarface, and the alleged leader of one local gang, was accused of the shooting of a young man associated with a rival group. In his first trial at the Central Criminal Court, the jury were unable to agree. A jury at Luton then shockingly convicted at the re-trial and he was sentenced to Life with a minimum of 26 years to serve. Michael won a re-trial after a fully contested appeal hearing and, back at the Old Bailey for his third trial, success at last. The prosecution relied on identification witnesses who knew him, a lying alibi, and his previous convictions for robberies and firearm matters. The defence relied on advocacy.

Arran Coghlan a Cheshire Businessman, represented by Michael Wolkind QC, was formally acquitted by the Crown Court after the CPS offered no evidence. Coghlan had been attacked in his own home by an notorious underworld figure wearing body armour, and carrying both a gun and a knife. The defendant suffered serious knife wounds as he defended himself and eventually escaped after taking control of the firearm and shooting his attacker.

The prosecution evidence against Coghlan included his possession of newspaper cuttings about the cases of Tony Martin and Munir Hussain, both dealing with home-owner self-defence and both represented successfully at the Court of Appeal by Michael Wolkind.

Michael acted for Gurpreet Ottalan, the first of nine defendants on an indictment charged with murder. The prosecution alleged this was a revenge attack for a minor incident hours earlier and the gang returned with firearms and body-armour. After five weeks of evidence, Mr Justice Jack accepted Michael’s submissions on Joint Enterprise and Ottalan was formally acquitted.

Michael represented 11 members of the Space Hijackers, a benign theatrical protest group. During the G20 demonstrations on 1st April 2009, they drove into London on a Saracen armoured personnel carrier to the accompanying sound of Ride of The Valkyries. They were all charged with Impersonating Police Officers. The charges were dropped.

Michael represented the home-owner Munir Hussain, the Asian businessman who had been held hostage by burglars. He and his family were threatened at knife-point that they would be killed. He managed to escape and then caught one of the gang who ended up beaten and brain-damaged. Munir was released from a term of imprisonment after Michael persuaded the Court of Appeal to take a ‘truly exceptional view’. The sentencing tariff for such an example of “causing grievous bodily harm with intent” would normally be around seven years. The national debate concerning self-defence and vigilantism was stirred by this important court judgement.

Michael Wolkind QC acted for the defendant, Richard Harrison-Allen, on his successful appeal against a conviction for murder. The defendant had been found guilty of a gang ‘territorial shooting’. The appeal hearing was fully contested by the Crown.

Michael Wolkind QC represented Asher Vance, acquitted of murder at the Central Criminal Court. The defendant was identified by several witnesses as the gunman who twice shot the victim at point-blank range.

Thanks to an expert defence by Michael, six Greenpeace climate change activists were cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station. The following is a diary entry by Michael from the third day of the trial.

Things are getting really interesting; the end of the trial is probably close (it looks as though the jury will be sent out to decide their verdict at 11.30 on Tuesday). We’ve seen the summing up from both the defence and the prosecution, there’s been laughter and a few tears and, again, I’m going to struggle to get all my notes down on paper.

First up was a statement (originally due on Friday) from Aqqaluk Lynge, an Inuit leader personally responsible for addressing damage to property in Greenland as a result of climate change. There’s a lot of it for him to address:

“Climate change affects my community, the Inuit people, by affecting their environment, which we see is more polluted due to increased shipping, the kind and numbers of species that they hunt, the house and camp constructions that they have to build on melting and unpredictable soils, the unpredictable weather… the sliding of houses into the sea… the reduction of habitats for polar bears and other species, and the introduction of new pest species.”

After hearing the defendants’ character statements, the jury watched a video of Kevin and Emily painting the chimney (complete with Kevin whistling nonchalantly as he dangled 200 metres above the ground).

By midday, we were into the nitty gritty: the final summing up, beginning with the prosecution. Prosecutor John Price began by explaining ‘lawful excuse‘. In certain circumstances, he said, it’s legal to damage property in order to protect property. But “necessarily, there must be limits” and the defendants crossed the line.

Much of the prosecution’s case focused on the consequences of the jury’s verdict. If the jury provides the defendants with a lawful excuse, “where does that leave the rest of us?” You’ve heard, he told the jury, that every ounce of carbon dioxide is capable of causing damage. “Where does that leave your motorcar? What of the old lady who lights a coal fire – is her chimney fair game?”

If our law is to protect the property of that old lady, he argued, then it must protect also the property “even of a German power company that makes large profits”. These defendants are guilty of criminal damage, not because their motives were false or their actions morally repellant, but “for the very simple, mundane and bland reason” that they broke the law.

Just after 2pm it was the turn of the defence. (“Exciting, isn’t it?” Michael Wolkind QC asked the jury before launching into a Poirot-like dissection of the evidence.)

He began by dismissing the prosecution’s argument that these defendants should be convicted in case a “loony” decided to attack a car or an old lady’s chimney in future. That was up to future juries to decide, he said. The job of this jury is to return a verdict on these witnesses – a point later supported by His Honour Judge Caddick in his own summing up.

He recapped on Professor Jim Hansen’s evidence, including his statements that stopping emissions from Kingsnorth for one day will prevent damage to property and increase the chances of protecting at least one species from extinction, and that we need a moratorium on all new coal plants without carbon capture and storage. I won’t repeat the rest of Hansen’s evidence here but please do go and read it – it’s extremely important stuff.

He also recapped Zac Goldsmith’s evidence and the defendants’ testimonies. Will, he said, had introduced evidence (photographs) of six people “causing criminal damage to a whiteboard”. Malcolm Wicks, Douglas Alexander, David Miliband, Ruth Kelly, Hilary Benn and John Hutton had all signed a whiteboard committing to take action on climate change. “What have they done?” asked Wolkind. In terms of policy, we’re going in completely the wrong direction.

Tomorrow, he said, the jury needs to consider three questions. If they say ‘yes’ to all of them, the verdict must be ‘not guilty’. If they say no to even one, the verdict should be ‘guilty’:

1. Is it possible that the defendants caused damage in order to protect property? (“It’s overwhelmingly certain,” said Wolkind. Why else would they climb up a 200 metre smoke stack carrying 50 kilos each? For fun? To lose weight?)

2. Is it possible the defendants believed property was in immediate need of protection? (There’s an “overwhelming certainty that they believed it.”)

3. Is it possible that the means of protesting were reasonable, considering the circumstances? (It was evidently reasonable, said Wolkind. They did the minimum damage necessary to shut down the power station.)

“It is not a case where, sadly and regrettably, nice people have gone a little too far and committed a crime… We won’t accept a sugar-coated path to conviction… What these defendants did was sincere, heartfelt, good, lawful and courageous.”

“By what right is government policy and a billionaire energy company destroying our world?” he asked before, essentially, inviting the jurors to become members of Greenpeace.

Finally, it was Judge Caddick’s turn. I missed this due to a technical problem (OK, a loo break after which I couldn’t get back into court) so I’ll quote directly from PA:

His Honour Judge Caddick, who today began his summing up after a week-long trial, said: “The good faith of each of the defendants and their commitment to the cause of the environment is not in doubt. Their motives for causing the damage, that they each admit, is not questioned. It is not alleged that any of them is an unthinking vandal. The issue is whether, despite what they have said and their undoubted good faith, they had a lawful excuse for what they did.”…

“In this country we have a long and honourable history of not only free speech, but accommodating protests and demonstrations by those who, on conscientious grounds, wish to affirm and draw attention to their beliefs and causes,” the judge said.

He said that allowance for demonstrations does not extend to breaking the law and that the jury’s task was to examine the boundary line represented by the lawful excuse and to evaluate whether the defendants crossed the line as the Crown charged.

He also clarified some legal points; damage to property could include damage arising from floods, fires and global warming. For questions two and three, he explained, it’s irrelevant whether the defendants’ beliefs were justified or not, as long as they were firmly believed.

The court acquitted the activists.