Update: This was the last day of evidence. We're back at Willesden Magistrates Court on Monday 25th at 10am for closing speeches (until approx. 11am), then the judgement that afternoon at 2pm or later. Arrive 30 mins before.

“Was someone in your family at risk of impending death?”, “Were they in hospital at the time?”, “Had they emailed or phoned in the preceding days to tell you that?”.

During the breaks in the trial, everyone chatting outside the courtroom was bemused by the logic of these questions by the Prosecutor. He set out to prove that the defence in English law of necessity, properly known as “duress of circumstance”, is limited to immediately preventing imminent death of individuals you feel responsible for such as family, and that the defendants were not acting to protect family members. He got increasingly frustrated when many of the 13 defendants refused to answer in terms of having no particular named individual on their deathbed, instead saying that knowing groups of people in threatened regions was enough. And the judge today also seemed tired by the same debate happening time after time.

The first one up today to respond to this line of questioning was Edward Thacker, from Sipson. By now the defence barristers are pre-empting the Prosecutor's questions themselves and asked:

“Who do you know that is impacted by climate change?”

“In the Sahel region, at the periphery of the Sahara desert, there is starvation now.”

“Do you know anyone there?”

“No”

“Does that matter to you?”

“No. [pause] It's never been more apparent, our interconnectedness. If we cannot be moved by common humanity, what hope do-”

The judge interjected: “I think you've done enough of this.”

So the defence barrister moved on: “Do you know people affected by Heathrow?”

“In the community I live in there is distrust of Heathrow over breaches of EU air pollution limits, over promises not to expand-

The judge again: “I think we're now straying into political statements. I want to avoid that.”

So the barrister moved on: “How did you come to be motivated about climate change?”

“When I studied geography at university, I learnt about the 2007 forest fires in the Amazon rainforest. The scale of the fire unnerved scientists. They could forsee a time when the Amazon rainforest becomes a carbon source rather than a carbon sink. I learnt about these terrifying positive feedback loops of warming, described as climatic tipping points.”

The judge stepped in: “I can't see that any of this is relevant. The Amazon rainforest really has very little to do with what happened on the day. I can see that the defendants are genuinely concerned about climate change.”

The barrister: “Was your action reasonable?”

Eddy: “Yes. It was urgent. Scientists warn that above two degrees of warming, these feedback loops could make climate change irreversible.”

Now it was the Prosecution's turn to show that acting was not, legally speaking, necessary, as we chose whether and when to do it: “You've known about this issue for some time.”

“Yes.”

And that we could not do enough to prevent death: “You knew you would only stop a small number of planes?”

“Yes, but there's a difference between the number of planes and the amount of carbon saved. A small number of planes are responsible for a vast quantity of carbon.”

Next up was Kara Moses, an outdoor educator and environment journalist.

Defence: “How did you come to be interested in a link between climate change and aviation?”

“I was teaching kids about the Zero Carbon Britain report, which shows that the UK can be zero carbon by 2050, using only existing, currently available technology. The only sectors that can't decarbonise are aviation and aspects of agriculture. If I can go into more detail?”

The judge: “No, I don't want to go into any more detail.”

The Prosecution: “You knew the authorities would remove you as soon as practicable, a relatively short time?”

“I thought I'd be there for most of the day.”

The judge intervened, as many of the other defendants had said they expected to stay for a few hours: “Is that really true? If you thought you were going to be there all day, how were you going to address basic needs?” She paused, then plucked up the courage: “such as going to the toilet?”

Kara replied: “We were wearing nappies, Madam,” amid giggles from the defendants in the dock.

The judge pressed on how long they had prepared to stay. Kara had described her position on the day, lying down with her arms locked to another defendant's arms within reinforced tubes. The judge asked: “Were you really expecting to stay in such an uncomfortable position all day?”

Kara explained: “A day of discomfort is a very small price I’m willing to pay. We live a life of privilege in the UK, compared to people in the global south who face the prospect of death and destruction of their homes every single day from climate change.”

“Why the 13th July?”

“The Davies report made me realise: I have to do something about this. The highest authorities are not going to do something about this. There has been a democratic failure. The biggest NGOs were working together on this, the now Prime Minister said it wouldn't happen.”

“Can you name people you know who are impacted by climate change?”

“When I was in Madagascar researching the links between primate behaviour, climate change and forest ecology, I met people who live in villages near the coast. They are in ongoing imminent danger of devastating cyclones.”

“Are there individuals you can name that were on your mind?”

“Yes, from when I did my research, there are individuals I can name if naming them is helpful. Shall I name them?”

The prosecution was a bit annoyed. Perhaps they feared that, like Rob's sister-in-law, the harrowing reality of their situation would not swing things his way: “No. We can assume that you are able to name people. Were you acting on any news recently received on 13 July that they were about to die?”

“No. Every single day they are in danger.”

“Did you receive an email or phone call from them warning of a cyclone?”

“Floods, droughts and cyclones are ongoing risks. Often they do not get warning of a cyclone, and they live in small rural villages and would not be likely to email or phone me even if they did.”

“I think we can accept that climate change generally increases threats to certain populations. I'm thinking of a particular threat to a particular person on a particular day. Was there one?”

“Often they don't get warning of a deadly cyclone.”

The judge stepped in: “Were you aware of one?”

“No. I'm aware there's a threat every single day.”

Next up was Richard Hawkins.

“How did you come to be motivated about climate change?”

“I remember it well. It was in the last year of my law degree, when I took a module on international environmental law. The lecturer said that essentially there is no international environmental law, or at least none that's worth the paper it's written on. Instead they'd just teach us about what appropriate laws would look like. That module changed my life.

“Have you worked professionally on aviation-related issues?

“I advised on how to communicate around a policy to, essentially, persuade people who fly 20 or 30 times a year to fly less. It was based on research that found that a small minority, 15% of flyers, take the lions share, 70%, of flights.

“And on climate-related issues?”

“I have worked with climate scientists on how to communicate their research, to make it accessible and motivational. I vividly recall the fear in the eyes of the climate scientists I've worked with when they described the impacts. A destabilised climate puts off the inbuilt cues that species' patterns of behaviour rely on.”

“Did that affect your decision to act on the 13 July?”

“I learnt that climate change is what's known as a stock problem, and not a flow problem. Put another way, the bathtub can still overflow while you're turning the tap off. We need to be turning the tap off fast. The Davies Report suggests the government wants to turn the tap on further. The Davies Report was the final straw, a signal of democratic failure on this issue.”

The prosecution pressed: “But the threat of climate change still remains?”

“Yes.”

“So actions of the defendants did not remove that threat?”

“We removed the threat posed by the emissions we stopped.”

“Were you aware of a press release by or on behalf of the group?”

“Yes”

The prosecutor asked: “So media was a purpose of the protest?”

“Media was an ancillary purpose. The primary purpose was to stop emissions.”

“So it was a purpose?”

“Yes, I think this is semantic. it was a multi-purpose action with a primary purpose.”

The Prosecutor replied: “I don't think you and I disagree about that.”

Next up was Bec Sanderson.

“How did you come to be motivated about climate change?”

“My dad worked in the British Antarctic Survey. He wrote one of the first papers on the effect of climatic warming on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. In my professional life I work on the psychology of action on climate change, on why we choose to act or not to act. Like Rich, I have advised climate scientists in the UK on how they communicate.”

After running through some of the earlier questions, the Prosecutor put to Bec: “The regrettable reality for your group is that that problem [of climate change] still remains.”

“It was not in response to the impending death of anyone in particular was it?”

“300,000 people died last year. I don't know their names and addresses.”

This, at last, was the end of all 13 defendants, having been asked by the prosecution whether their had a family member on their deathbed and whether their action had succeeded in stopping climate change. The visitors still in the court public gallery were by now around a dozen in total, down from around 30 on Monday: parents, journalists, campaigners including a Harmondsworth resident whose home would be bulldozed and supporters including a Heathrow worker.

Next, solicitor Raj Chada summarised the expert report of climate scientist Alice Bows Larkin:

1.1: “However, unlike other transport sectors, the altitude at which aircraft fly, and the sensitivity of this part of the atmosphere to chemical input, means emissions released there contribute additional climate warming.”

2.6: “Heathrow airport is estimated to contribute a little under 50% of the total CO2 produced by domestic and international flights associated with the UK.”

3.3: “For most sectors, CO2 cuts in line with the ‘well below’ 2°C goal could feasibly be brought about through a combination technological, operational and demand-side changes (although this would be very demanding to achieve). However, within the aviation sector, there is a major barrier to any significant technical change in the foreseeable decades that will improve efficiency or carbon intensity to a level that outstrips anticipated growth sufficiently for a proportionate response to the 2°C goal (Bows et al 2008). This is a view that is echoed by other academics and many industry sources. It is also is why the UK Government’s own projections for 2050 at best show a 12% reduction in CO2 from aviation between 2010 and 2050.”

8.1: “The IPCC state that if climate change continues as projected in line with their Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), the major negative changes to health compared to a no climate change future will include (inter alia):
•    “Greater risk of injury, disease, and death due to more intense heat waves and fires (very high confidence)”
•    “Increased risk of undernutrition resulting from diminished food production in poor regions (high confidence)”
•    “Increased risks of food- and water-borne diseases (very high confidence) and vector-borne diseases (medium confidence)”(p713)”

“The World Health Organization (2014), through scenario analysis of future climate impacts, estimate the additional deaths due to climate change across a range of health issues known to be sensitive to climate change (heat-related mortality in elderly people, mortality associated with coastal flooding, mortality associated with diarrhoeal disease in children aged under 15 years, malaria population at risk and mortality, dengue population at risk and mortality, undernutrition (stunting) and associated mortality). Using a medium-high emissions scenario (this would be one that is relatively close to the current emissions track, and not a ‘well below 2°C’ scenario) they project an additional 250,000 deaths per annum due to climate change across this subset of potential health issues.”

8.2: In the recent Paris Agreement it was recognised that climate change “represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”.

Next, Raj Chada summarised the witness statement of Bryan Tomlinson, a taxi driver from the Heathrow villages.

He says: “I have lived in Harlington, very close to Heathrow Airport on and off for 30 years.

“I have had asthma since I was a child but I have noticed that it has got worse in recent years. I believe that this is because of how close I live to Heathrow airport.

“There is only a chain link fence between my back garden and the airport grounds.

“I am certain the the pollution from the airport has affected my asthma. It is obvious. When I come out of my house I can smell burning rubber from the aircraft. When I wipe my face there is dust and grime on my face.

“I cannot go into my garden now because of the pollution and its effect on my asthma. I have to stay indoors or away from the area. This is becoming increasingly difficult as I have got older as I need to stay at home more frequently.

“The excessive noise from Heathrow Airport has also had a detrimental effect on my health. The noise from the aircraft taking off comes through the windows at my house. It drives me mad. This is another reason why I do not use the garden.

“The worse the noise gets, the more it causes me stress, which in turn affects my asthma and general health. It is becoming more and more depressing to live here.

“As a local resident I have just got used to Heathrow affecting my health. Everyone knows about it. It does not need to be said. You can tell by living here that it affects your health and that the life expectancy as a local resident of Heathrow is going to be shorter than for someone living elsewhere, which I have also read in studies.

“I have spoken to [the defendant] Sam about my health problems and the reasons I believe I am suffering from these problems, as outlined above.

“I am supportive of Sam and his actions, because of the impact the Heathrow has had on my health and on other local residents. I really do appreciate what Sam and the others have done. It means so much to me that they have put themselves on the line for us as local residents and for me personally.

“The noise and air pollution from the airport is getting worse and I believe that something needs to be done to prevent this increasing to an even more dangerous level.”

Next, the statement from Rob's sister-in-law was summarised, and then a statement from Philip Rumsey, a resident of Harmondsworth, the village that would be destroyed for the third runway.

“I visited Harefield Hospital as I was getting pains in my chest. They discovered I have a 99% blockage in two places in the Left Anterior Descending Artery. I am lucky to still be alive.

“I know that air pollution and noise can cause problems with blood clotting and the build-up of plaque in the arteries. No one else in my family have suffered with this. They all lived in South East London or the East End. I am the only one who moved to Harmondsworth. I have been here for 42 years.

“The effect on my life was that I could not walk quickly and could not walk uphill no matter how small the gradient. I have lost most of my energy and spend most days taking it easy. I had to rely on my wife to do all of the heavy work on our allotment and in the house.

“An operation that normally takes around 40 minutes took 2 ½ hours in my case.

“There is no guarantee that the blockage will not happen again. That would then entail a bypass to be performed.”

Next, statements were read out about the good character of the defendants.

This was followed by an impassioned battle between the defence and prosecution about whether MP John McDonnell's statement was admissible.

The judge said: “This will not assist me in my deliberations. The issue in the case is, 'Did the defendants honestly hold a reasonable belief that what they were doing was necessary to protect life and limb?'

Defence barrister Raj Chada argued hard that an issue in the case was what alternatives the defendants had. He said that the Prosecutor had put to a defendant that she should have persuaded elected representatives rather than taking direct action herself, and had then asked her whether she had stood for elected office.

McDonnell, he argued, was uniquely well placed to speak on the possibility of influence through the parliamentary process, as he has represented Hayes and Harlington constituency as an MP for 19 years. The constituency includes Heathrow. He was suspended from Parliament for five days after he protested in Parliament, calling the refusal to let MPs vote on a third runway “a disgrace to our democracy”. He launched a High Court judicial review that found that the Climate Change Act made plans for a third runway “untenable in law and common sense”.

So the judge asked the Prosecutor to simply agree the statement, to prevent defendants feeling “aggrieved”, but meaning McDonnell would not appear in court, saying: “I can understand this [the Prosecution position that the statement is not relevant] may be the case in law, but what harm does it do to your case?”

The Prosecutor was having absolutely none of it. In a feisty retort, he gave her short shrift: “Yes it is. That's the end of the matter.”

Although the judge tried again, the Prosecutor was dug in for war, bluntly stating “While I have some sympathy as a person for that argument, as a Prosecution lawyer I have none.” He paused. But he went on: “End of story.”

So the judge gave her ruling on McDonnell:

“In that statement, he [John McDonnell] talks about a number of things, including his views over the development of 4th terminal at Heathrow. His opposition to further expansion, based on the strongly held views of many constituents, living in surrounding villages. The concerns of local residents about the building of a third runway, for a variety of reasons, including the impact of increased air pollution. He talks about the deleterious effect of the expansion of the airport on climate change and confirms he has campaigned against further expansion of the airport.

“It talks about a High Court action in 2010 , which led to recommendations and promises from planning inspectors. He says that promises made have not been observed. He gives opinion on the debate about expansion of Heathrow and talks about the benefits of direct action, which he says are many, although it may cause short term inconvenience...

“Mr Chada's case is, in effect, that Mr McDonnell provides evidence that the democratic process has not worked and therefore it is relevant...

“Nothing in Mr McDonnell's statement assists me ... in relation to the threat to life or limb.

“I can say that I will find that each of the defendants genuinely felt exasperated that their very considerable efforts to draw the attention of those in authority to the very real threat that climate change poses have not been effective. I am therefore not going to to allow Mr McDonnell to give live evidence.

“I would say to the defendants, in respect of what you wanted him to say, you've already won.”

Next, Sian Berry, the Green Party’s candidate for the London mayoral elections, watched from the public gallery rather than the witness box, as her evidence had already been ruled as irrelevant by the judge. Four more campaigners were ruled irrelevant. Out of the eight total defence witnesses, only four had their statements accepted, and none were permitted to appear in person.

Timetabling finished the day off and we went to the pub, where they were showing on the big telly a programme about police interceptors (cops in action with cameras). There was a moment of silence and heads turned when one of the clips started with a police car driving down a runway that had various emergency services vehicles already at the scene. “Is that them?” “It can't be” As the police car got closer, however, it became clear that it was an incident involving a microlite aircraft, and we returned to our afternoon pints and orange juices.

The next day, Thursday 21st (when I finished writing the blog), Transport secretary Philip McLoughlin said on LBC radio there should be a third runway decision “I hope later this year”, implying there was still a chance that a decision on the zombie runway might resurface after 2016.

The same day, scientists from Kings College London advised Londoners with heart conditions or breathing problems to reduce exercise and to stay at home due to a particulate air pollution alert.

Successive governments of the UK, including the current one, have pledged repeatedly to limit the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, in order to meet the global target of no more than two degrees of warming. These pledges have taken the form of manifesto promises, public statements, negotiating positions at international talks and cross-party support for the Climate Change Act 2008, which establishes the policy of an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as a legal obligation.

But, in common with other governments and international bodies, they have fudged the issue of aviation emissions, collectively failing to bring these within climate targets and emission reduction efforts. As Alice Bows-Larkin's testimony so ably demonstrates, aviation (and shipping) threaten to undermine the UK’s legal and international obligations.

The continued failure to address this issue, combined with the government’s commitment to the continued expansion of aviation capacity, makes a mockery of its pledges and targets, and substantially undermines the global target, affirmed at Paris, of no more than 2 degrees of warming, and ideally no more than 1.5. 

When a government breaks its own promises, undermines its own targets and threatens the common welfare of its own people and of citizens elsewhere in the world, what democratic options are left open to us? There is a long and honourable tradition in this country and elsewhere of citizens taking non-violent direct action in order to challenge unrepresentative, injust and life-threatening political settlements. Without such action, women, agricultural labourers and other propertyless men might have been left without a vote. The apartheid regime in South Africa may have persisted. The British might have remained in India. The transatlantic slave trade might not have come to an end. In fact, there are few aspects of what almost everyone on Earth now regards as human progress that have not been assisted by actions of the kind taken by the Heathrow 13.

In years to come, those who put their own liberty and in some cases their lives at risk in order to press governments to take action to prevent climate breakdown will be regarded in the same light as the suffragettes, the chartists, the anti-apartheid activists and the antislavery movement. They will be regarded not as outlaws and subversives, but as democratic heroes. Succeeding generations, struggling with the impacts that our government’s failures to take action on climate change bequeathed them, are likely to be amazed that they could have been seen in any other light.

I have lived in my constituency for nearly 40 years. I represented the constituency as a councillor on the Greater London Council from 1981 to 1986 and I have been the local Member of Parliament from 1997.

Throughout the periods I have held elected office for this area I have been closely involved in dealing with the issues associated with the development of Heathrow Airport. This has included attendance at the planning inquiries on the development of Terminal Four and Terminal Five. For over 30 my years I have convened meetings of local residents to discuss the expansion of Heathrow airport and to consult them on the various proposals to expand the airport that have been brought forward over this period.

Although following local consultations I accepted the development of a fourth terminal at the airport, I opposed any further expansion based upon the strongly held views of many of my constituents, especially those living in the Heathrow villages and in the south of Hillingdon, that the levels of noise and air pollution and the loss of homes and indeed whole communities was unacceptable.

There continues to be extremely high levels of concern expressed by local residents at the threat of a third runway. Local people living in the Heathrow villages are naturally distressed that their homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable as a result of air pollution and increased noise. This will impact upon 4000 homes, accommodating approximately 10,000 local residents.

People are concerned at the rise in air pollution bearing in mind that the air pollution levels in the vicinity of the airport are already often above EU limits. They worry this causes some constituents health problems. Two local schools will be demolished if a third runway goes ahead as well as local community centres and community facilities. The village of Harmondsworth will largely be wiped off the face of the earth and the village of Sipson rendered unliveable.

Heathrow pollution is killing some of my constants and harming the heath of others. The EU limits are designed to keep people safe and yet repeated beaches, an immediate threat to people’s lives and health, are allowed to continue, and may be allowed to increase.

There is also an increasing appreciation and concern amongst my constituents about climate change and the deleterious effect airport expansion will have on tackling this threat to our future. Just as we know the toxic pollution Heathrow is producing now will effect people’s health, we know that the greenhouse gasses it is emitting will warm the climate, and yet we are still talking about expansion.

For all these reasons many of my constituents and I have been campaigning for many years against additional terminals and runways at Heathrow. We have used a wide range of methods in these campaigns including lobbying their local councillors, Members of Parliament and Government ministers. In addition they have used traditional methods of public meetings, marches, demonstrations and peaceful direct action.

The opposition to expanding Heathrow became a lot more visible, and more powerful, in the last ten years, as the environmental movement focussed on aviation, and particularly aviation growth, as a major threat to the climate, and the issue grew to become the defining local issue for many MPs and other politicians representing west London.

During 2010, along with counsellors, residents and environmental campaigners we took the government to the high court over plans to expand Heathrow. During this case we argued that the case for a third runway was not economically and environmentally sound. We won this case on these grounds and the judge said that expansion of Heathrow was untenable in law and common sense. This is still the view I hold today.

This campaigning has secured recommendations and promises from planning inspectors, politicians and indeed the owners of Heathrow airport that no further expansion would or should go ahead. The Planning Inspector at the Terminal 5 inquiry advised against further Heathrow expansion and the airport owners wrote to my constituents saying that they did not need and would not seek a third runway if they were given permission for a fifth terminal. The current prime minister prior to the 2010 general election famously stated “no ifs, no buts, there will be no third runway.” For many of us who had devoted enormous time and effort to this cause, this felt like a momentous event. We thought we had quite deliberately been given an unequivocal promise by the man who now has the final say.

Unfortunately these promises have not been held to and we are faced with a renewed lobby by the owners of the airport for expansion and the prime minister has argued that his promise was only for the lifetime of a Parliament and has set in train a process, which may believe is aimed at delivering expansion at Heathrow.

This has resulted in many considering that a return to campaigning including lobbying, demonstrating and direct action is needed to try and ensure that the promises of politicians and the airport owners are adhered to.

At times the debate around whether to expand Heathrow has been a disgrace to our democracy. The manoeuvring to keep the decision away from parliament and the people, including my constituents, and keep it between ministers and lobbyists, pushed me to stage my own  protest by taking the mace during a parliamentary debate in 2009 on the expansion of Heathrow, as a result of which I was suspended from parliament for five days.

My experience in politics over the last 40 years has shown me that these campaigning methods can be extremely successful in bringing the public’s attention to an issue and in influencing government decisions. Securing publicity by means of direct action can alert people across the country to an issue that then leads them to a closer examination of that issue and often taking the matter up with the relevant policy makers. In this way policies are influenced and changed for the good of the whole community. But in order to be a direct action rather than an extension of political speech, it also stops, or at least interrupts, the problem it is addressing, which makes it a disruptive act. Although the specific direct action can at times cause some short term inconvenience, by highlighting a threat like climate change, it can have a longer term and more significant effect on averting the impact of a greater risk.

When an activist or group decide to intervene to interrupt a problem directly, they take on a huge responsibility to ensure what they do is safe, proportionate and reasonable. No-one should disrupt other people’s lives lightly or without good cause.  But modern history is full of examples of peaceful civil disobedience which was both necessary and effective, and in many cases a vital defence of democracy. Some governments and some corporations need more than just a sternly worded letter.

Of course I will have always sought to and will continue to maximise the use of Parliamentary methods to seek to influence the Government’s decision on Heathrow but one of the most effective methods of securing political change on this issue in the past has been the demonstration by campaigning of the large scale and extensive opposition to an additional runway at Heathrow. Direct action campaigns have made a significant contribution to this. Given the urgency of the environmental problems Heathrow is causing, and the deeply disappointing lack of commitment shown by Heathrow and the government to unequivocal promises they have both made, it’s almost inevitable that activists will lose patience with a process that they no longer trust and do what they can to solve the problems themselves.

Next week 13 people will stand trial for their role in challenging the climate crimes of Heathrow expansion. But who are the guilty ones? Ordinary people who risk arrest and personal liberty to stop carbon emissions and draw attention to the devastation of aviation expansion, or a rich business-government partnership that wants to build an unnecessary third runway that will crash our emissions targets, further damage the health of local communities and cause catastrophic climate change?
 
Last summer, shortly after the publication of the Davies report which recommended expansion of Heathrow, 13 members of Plane Stupid occupied Heathrow’s northern runway, constructing a sophisticated fortress in the early hours of the morning, with a polar bear seated on top of an iceberg in a cage and the rest locked on in various ways. They stayed in position for six hours, causing the cancellation of a number of flights, saving hundreds of tonnes of carbon being released into the atmosphere, whilst apologising for any disruption caused to passengers. They were eventually arrested and charged for aggravated trespass and being airside without permission.

The 'Heathrow 13' now face a two-week trial at Willesden Magistrates Court, starting next week (18th-29th January). All 13 have pleaded not guilty, and will be running a ‘necessity’ defence of preventing greater harm. They believe their actions were justified, necessary and proportionate in the face of the destruction and public health damage caused by Heathrow airport, and plan to draw on witnesses including leading climate scientists, politicians, prominent authors, campaigners and local residents to give evidence.

Court schedule and sentencing

Each defendant will be giving evidence, in turn from the 18th-21st January, with defence experts and witnesses giving evidence from 21st-25th January. Judgement will be given on 29th Jan at Uxbridge Magistrates Court (note change of location for final day). If convicted, the sentencing may be given a few weeks later.

Possible sentences range from fines and community service to up to 3 months in prison. Prison is a real possibility, following the recent imprisonment of peaceful protestors – such as the Love Activists who occupied the old Bank of England to highlight lack of support for the homeless, and Trenton Oldfield who disrupted the Oxford-Cambridge boat race in protest of elitism and inequality – which could indicate a trend towards more severe sentencing for people taking peaceful direct action. It’s a risk the defendants have said they are willing to take, noting that a short spell in prison is still a life of privilege compared to those living on the frontlines of climate change such as low lying Pacific Island states, facing the total destruction of their homes, communities and entire way of life.

Direct action is a vital part of any functioning democracy. It’s played a key role in many of the civil liberties we take for granted today such as the eight-hour working day, the weekend, women’s right to vote, equal rights for people regardless of race and ethnicity. Since the Heathrow action, the discourse around whether to expand Gatwick or Heathrow has shifted to include climate change. This is no longer a debate around which airport to expand, but whether to expand at all.

More runways means more climate chaos and air pollution

 When you look at the facts, it’s clearly the Government and Heathrow airport that should be on trial. They cannot be relied upon to take action on climate change, instead going in the opposite direction.

The urgent need to take action is clear, given breaches of the Climate Change Act and EU limits on NO2, poor health and early death due to air and noise pollution from the airport, and increasing CO2 concentrations leading to catastrophic climate change, which is causing the sixth mass extinction event and, if action is not taken, will result in the displacement of 75 million people by 2035 and exponentially more beyond, as well as death, disease and injury to people - last year alone 300,000 people died due to climate change. Being one of the hardest industries to decarbonize, the only way to reduce emissions from aviation is to fly less.

Giving evidence for the defence is Professor in Energy & Climate Change Alice Bows-Larkin on the impacts of aviation on climate change, and Associate Professor Steven Barrett on air quality and public health impacts of UK airports. Bows-Larkin’s research found in 2005 that, if aviation growth isn’t reduced, by 2037 all of the carbon that it’s safe for the UK to emit will come from aviation alone. Papers by Barrett have warned of more than 50 deaths a year directly attributable to air pollution from Heathrow. They also found that every year UK airport emissions are responsible for 4,400 cases of respiratory symptoms in asthmatic children and 2,300 cases of asthma exacerbation in asthmatic children, as well as 16,000 lost work days and 89,000 minor restricted activity days.

The UK, and particularly London, has long been in breach of EU air pollution limits. Just this week, London breached EU air pollution limits for the whole year in just eight days. Environment ministers will soon be in court over inadequate plans to address dangerous and illegal NO2 levels. 93% of the population-weighted mean due to UK aviation emissions in Greater London is accounted for by airports. This means that 93% of the total aviation emissions (weighted for population) occurs in the Greater London area – and poor air quality is likely to be the dominant environmental cause of mortality in 2050 (even more than dirty water or poor sanitation). Aircraft emissions account for 27% of annual mean NOx emissions near (and 15% 2-3km downwind of) airports. Reports estimate that UK airport emissions at their 2005 baseline cause 110 deaths per year, which will likely rise to ~250 per year by 2030, even without expansion. Expansion at Heathrow would increase UK-wide health impacts due to air quality by 4% in 2030 relative to the baseline (again assuming no expansion). Aircraft emissions already result in approximately 31 deaths per year within 32km of Heathrow.

Perks for the few

The problem is not the average family taking an annual holiday, and that is not what is driving the expansion. Nor – despite what the pro-expansion lobby would have you believe – is it even business flights, which have been in decline for 15 years. What is actually driving demand for more runways is wealthy frequent flyers. The 10-15 per cent of the UK population who flew three or more times last year took a whopping 70 per cent of all of UK flights. 57 per cent actually took no flights at all, with the rest taking just one or two. And the strongest predictors of frequent flyer status? A salary of over £115,000 and ownership of a second home abroad. Not only that, the most popular destinations from the areas with the most frequent flyers are tax havens. The facts speak for themselves – this is about a rich minority living luxury lifestyles, while the rest of us pay the real cost.

Government lies

Five years ago David Cameron unequivocally cancelled plans for a new runway with his now embarrassingly infamous "No ifs, no buts, no third runway" pledge. But he then found some profitable 'ifs' and 'buts' and commissioned Howard Davies to produce the £20 million Airport Commission to decide not 'whether' to expand or not, but 'which' airport to expand. Nowhere in the report was the option of 'neither'. Nowhere was the real impact on the climate and local communities seriously considered. The 'Heathrow 13' group took their action two weeks after the publication of the Airport Commission and before the government’s response to the report, which has now been delayed until after London Mayoral elections.

Support the #Heathrow13

The group has been receiving messages of solidarity from groups and individuals from across the UK as well as further afield such as Turkey and France, where the fight has continued for over 40 years against the proposed Notre Dame des Landes mega-airport near Nantes. Last weekend, on Saturday 9th January, 20,000 people, 400 local farmers on tractors, and 200 bikes blocked the Nantes ringroad in protest against the building of what would be Europe’s largest airport. A forest – known as la ZAD (Zone À Défendre) – has been occupied for years to protect it from the threat of destruction by the airport project. The same story runs through their struggle – local communities, wildlife and the climate face of devastating damage in the name of needless profit.

Supporters will also be outside Willesden Magistrates Court on the first day of the trial (Monday 18th January) for a solidarity demo organised by allies at Reclaim the Power. The theme is RED lines - lines which represent minimum limits for a just and liveable planet; lines that global leaders inevitably crossed in their genocidal deal, signed in Paris, and which Heathrow would cross in the building of a third runway. Defending those red lines is not a crime, and the Government has shown that it can’t be trusted to take action. The facts speak for themselves – it’s new runways or a safe climate; we can’t have both.

Plane Stupid will be covering the court proceedings on Facebook, Twitter and their website with daily updates. Support the #Heathrow13 by sharing updates on social media and/or come down to the court and join the solidarity demo on Monday.