stansted 15 appeal, day 1. let’s gooooooooooo

here we here we here we fucking go

ok we in and we waiting to go inside the court. no photos allowed so you’ll all have to deal with my deranged descriptions. very hogwarts vibes in here.

been told to make it a matter of public record that, for once, i was here on time and before some of the lawyers

we’re in the public gallery - got led up the campest little spiral staircase. deeply sad that i can’t show you all but you’ll just have to imagine

just waiting for it to start, reading through some of your messages and dm - tysm for all the love and support lads! really weird that we have to do this on our own without anyone else here (and no post court pub to debrief) so really heartwarming to read them all <3 xxx

plot twist i have had too much coffee and now i need to pee x

alright judges are coming - WE READY

every time they say "all rise" the blue song plays on a loop in my head for about an hour, so that's where i'm at right now

our lawyer is currently summing up our arguments, running through each of the grounds. she's appearing via video link (having had to self-isolate). arguing each of the point will be split between our two QCs.

lawyer is running through the minutiae of the act we were charged with, and how it should be interpreted - arguing we should never have been prosecuted under it bc it was, as far as we're concerned, intended for much graver crimes.

in putting a headset in, our lawyer has now frozen so the court has risen for a second to sort it all out! do i have enough time to run out and smoke? WE'LL SOON SEE!

ok i’m a bit lost in the court

FOUND MY WAY BACK! we cracking on!

our lawyer currently arguing that the legislation we were charged under was intended simply to give effect to the montreal convention, which was designed to provide universality in the charging and punishing of acts of terror against civil air travel

now making the point that at the time of drawing up of the convention, the UK commented saying it should not capture acts that were not 'terror'. other parties making it clear it shouldn't include strikes or demonstrations.

now making the point that when the legislation which we were charged under was introduced to commons in 1990, introducing minister made it clear intention was to punish acts of terrorism at airports.

every time our lawyer comes for the other sides arguments all i think of is this gif lmao. my brain is rotted x

our lawyer going through the elements of the act, arguing that the interpretation of it was far too wide and should never have pertained to what we did (a line of argument which, shockingly, i agree with x)

ty to the mail for saying i am 27. that's what true allyship looks like ladies. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8981423/Stansted-15-begin-Court-Appeal-bid-overturn-convictions.html

our lawyer has finished going through the constituent elements of the offence. now moving on to the question of necessity (i.e. it was necessary for us to do what we did in order to prevent a greater crime or threat taking place). we weren't allowed to use this defence at trial

going through precedent around the defence of necessity to set out it's parameters (and why it should pertain to what we did)

lawyer keeps referencing cases i studied at a level - having to stop myself hollering out - 'RE:A! WHATS GOODDD!'

oh we're referencing from my evidence now!! hoping we're not going to relive the moment where i forgot how many people were in the stansted 15 whilst on the stand x

ok phew she went with highlighting this instead: https://twitter.com/zedhas3/status/1331218085580304387?s=20

lawyer is arguing that the question of necessity should have been a jury question (i.e. should have been put to them to decide whether what we did was necessary rt being withheld by the trial judge )

we got a whole squad together for the appeal much like the bad blood video but also in no way like that at all x https://twitter.com/libertyhq/status/1331218731935129603?s=20

OK LADS. we rising for lunch!

and we’re back! our lawyer just runnin through various elements of necessity once again

in a somewhat classique move, i did not charge my battery pack sufficiently and my laptop is now dead so, i’ll be tweeting as long as my phone battery lasts!

our lawyer summing up her point once again asserting that necessity should have been put to and left to the jury to decide.

now moved on to the trial judges summing up and the issues that we have with it, arguing that he introduced fresh issues during it.

argues that the introduction of those fresh issues (that danger inevitably flowed from our presence airside etc) showed how wide and flawed the prosecution case was

and with that, our first lawyer is done. held back from finger snapping and shouting “yassssss”. felt better not to at this juncture x

our second lawyer now addressing the court on the attorney generals decision to charge us under the aviation and maritime security act (which, plot twist, we feel should not have happened)

should say i am trying to be *extremely* careful about what i say and tweet here, so i’m broad strokesing it. for a more in-depth look at what’s happening, this thread from @zedhas3 is great! https://twitter.com/zedhas3/status/1331196445542772737

lawyer arguing that, the qs around what evidence or submissions were made to the attorney general are important bc, even if the legislation does extend to what we did, it doesn’t mean they *should* have prosecuted under it. lawyer argues we should have seen evidence or submission

hands up, i got distracted for a second so hard to say what we’re chatting about now but i think we’re still on the AG issue

oh yep we’re still on AG! fear not everyone!

ok we’re now onto the next ground! the final ground! it’s around directions to the jury around defendants decisions not to give evidence. at trial only 7 (iirc) defendants (inc. urs truly) gave evidence on the stand.

lawyer arguing that direction should have been given to jury that no adverse inference should be taken from the fact some didn’t give evidence

and with that - our submissions are over.

now the crown rise to make their arguments. assumin it’s poor form to boo x

they’re starting with elements of the legislation.

prosecution QC is the same one who prosecuted at trial. very surreal to listen to him and be transported back 2 years to that windowless court room in chelmsford. a terrible time!!

QC for the crown readin out the text of the statute. if i speak...

crowns arguments ongoing. dis me rn

ok lads, that’s it for court proceedings today!!