Ratcliffe on Trial: Statement by Bindmans about Ratcliffe Trial

Today [Monday April 18th] Keir Starmer QC, the DPP confirmed that following a review he instructed Clare Montgomery QC to conduct into the safety of the convictions of 20 defendants convicted of conspiracy to trespass at Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal fired power station, he has invited the defence to appeal to the Court of Appeal against those convictions, ‘in the light of non-disclosure of material relating to the activities of an undercover police officer (see DPP urges defence to appeal convictions of Ratcliffe-on-Soar protestors).

Mike Schwarz, who represents those 20 defendants made the following comment.

The development is of course welcome. It is the first official recognition that an undercover police officer played a role in this case and that there was non-disclosure of relevant evidence to the defence during the trial process. However, it has taken 2 years to get this far and this has only come about as a result of the persistence of climate campaigners.

The development also begs more questions than it answers. The prosecution have not provided us with any of the relevant material and nor have they said that they will do so. They have not given us any information about the role the undercover police officer played. Indeed they have still not named the officer.

The prosecution have said nothing about how the material came not to be disclosed to the defence. It is significant that this development comes from the Crown Prosecution Service. The police – Nottinghamshire police, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, the Metropolitan Police, ACPO – remain tight lipped.

The prosecution have not even purported to address the wider serious questions of the principle and policies and compliance with policies surrounding the use of undercover police against protest movements, not just climate campaigners on this occasion.

I have concerns that a criminal appeal may fail to address these issues and will therefore be as unsatisfactory a mechanism for the scrutiny of these important constitutional issues as those other reviews set up by, among others, HMIC, the IPCC and SOCA.

Perhaps above all, the impression remains that the Establishment have sought to undermine those campaigning against the urgent and extreme perils of climate change and, once discovered, grudgingly are conceding only as much as they have to when they have to.