How Phoebe and Jane beat a broken court

Despite all the problems it’s facing, the legal system is bending over backwards to criminalise people taking peaceful climate action. It doesn’t always succeed though.

Here’s a story about how two people, Phoebe and Jane, faced down all the system’s failings to defend themselves in court and walk away without being found guilty.

Photo by Jamie Lowe

First half: Broken system

In prison since the action, Phoebe needed their friends to send them information on the climate crisis and the effectiveness of nonviolent civil resistance in achieving change to help them prepare to defend themselves in court. Climate Action Support Pathway (CASP) also sent them legal resources for people self-representing in court.

Bronzefield prison blocked everything, repeatedly.

Even the evidence the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were relying on to try to convict Phoebe had trouble getting through. Phoebe’s Prisoner Offender Manager agreed to have material sent to her instead, but it spent a month sitting on someone’s desk and only made it to the officer after the trial.

Phoebe explained their difficulties at hearings in the run-up to the trial. On 19 December, the judge (who was covering for the trial judge) told them to get a lawyer to solve their problems. But, in the end, he ordered that Phoebe be brought to court on 23 December to have all the prosecution evidence served. A CASP volunteer took support resources to the court on that date too, which the judge allowed to be passed to Phoebe.

Due to her visual impairment, Jane needs information in large print. The CPS repeatedly failed to supply it, failed to answer any of her emails and refused to post information to her home address.

Due to her visual impairment, Jane needs information in large print. The CPS repeatedly failed to supply it, failed to answer any of her emails and refused to post information to her home address.

On the first day of the trial, Jane still hadn’t received two statements from a key prosecution witness.

Photo by Jamie Lowe

Second half: Humanity prevails

Once in court, Phoebe and Jane had a better time. The judge (HHJ Duncan) was respectful, explained things and allowed them extra time because they were inexperienced at self-representing.

She ensured all Jane’s access needs were met, approving a MacKenzie Friend and producing all documents in the required format. She allowed Phoebe to sit in the main body of the court (rather than the dock) and tried to ensure a fair trial (albeit within the narrow confines of the law as it now is). The prosecution barrister was also helpful and respectful, explaining procedure and getting issues which arose during the trial addressed.

Phoebe and Jane were allowed one defence – the consent defence that allows criminal damage defendants to argue that they honestly believed the owner of the property would have consented if they had known of the ‘circumstances’ of the damage.

But, in line with a recent ruling in a higher court, they were not allowed to talk about the climate crisis in relation to the act for which they were on trial – it was ruled irrelevant, along with the two expert reports they submitted in their defence.

As a result, the jury could only watch footage of paint being sprayed, but the clip was stopped when Phoebe and Jane sat down and explained their actions to camera. In court, each time they tried to talk about the climate, the judge stopped them – a total of 20 times. However, the judge did not send the jury out or find them in contempt of court, as other judges have in similar circumstances.

The heating in court cells broke down, meaning Phoebe had to agree to do their closing speech via video link from prison to allow the trial to continue.

This was a big sacrifice as there are definite advantages to being in the room with the jury and having that human connection. Everyone was grateful to Phoebe, including the judge and the prosecuting barrister. Phoebe gave a powerful, personal and very moving speech.

Having heard the evidence they were allowed to hear, the jury were split and unable to reach either a unanimous or majority verdict. A retrial is scheduled for May 2026. To publicly speculate on why the jury couldn’t agree would risk contempt of court, but it’s worth remembering that, in the UK, all jurors “have an absolute right to acquit according to their conscience.”


But if you can’t commit to £4 a month, you can make a one-off donation to our crowdfunder here instead.

How do your donations help?

Your money goes towards supporting activists in hardship with travel costs and other expenses faced as result of their resistance, as well as the living costs of our small team of legal, emotional and other support workers.

Need to change your donation?

If you want to cancel or amend a monthly donation made here, you can do so here.