stansted 15 appeal, day 2. late start today (kicking off at 2). let’s do thissssss

just waiting to be taken in to kick off today’s proceedings!

for those of you that were following yesterday you'll remember that we left off with the crown making their case. i'm going to try lay out whats happening in the broadest terms possible but, as i'm sure you'll all appreciate i have to be *very* careful with what i say so...

will be sitting on my hands for most of it doing this

we left the crown setting out why they think the legislation (aviation and maritime security act 1990) *did* actually apply to us and why what was said when it was introduced to parly or when the convention that it was drawn from was created shouldn't be given too much weight.

the judges are back in (all rise!!) and we're off again!!

we are once again talking about ground 1 - which is all around the argument about whether the charge covered what we did or not. we submit not. crown submits it is.

lord chief justice asks a question around 'devices', the offence says "an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally—to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome,". points to text in montreal protocol which indicates device...

is something which will damage or destroy a plane.

'quite clearly device is different to a thing' he says

as i said, i'm being v careful what i'm saying but for more wholesale report of what's going on thiss thread by @zedhas3 is invaluable https://twitter.com/zedhas3/status/1331604797083037696?s=20

after a fair amount of debate around devices, endangerment and disruption (with lots of questions from the judges) crown now moving on to submissions around the use of necessity // justification defence

in that section the crown genuinely just tried to argue that a pair of shoes could constitute a device and that playing football airside could also fall under the act (which reminder, is included as a convention offence under terrorism act 2006) lmaooooo

deeply grateful for the mask that's hiding me cracking the fuck up at how absurd it is

obviously i think the crowns arguments are patently nonsense but that was truly something else. genuinely embarrassing to watch

crown QC now quoting from the trial judge. feel like im back in that horrendous chelmsford court room

no harm to him but, i zoned out for a second so not sure what exactly he's arguing but i disagree with whatever it is

i think he might be arguing that you can't use justification for a criminal act which... would make it somewhat obsolete as a criminal defence wouldn't it

he's jumping around between different sections of the (thousands of pages of evidence). a real whistle-stop tour of incorrect.

dunno why those brackets are in there but feels like it adds to it

crown QC trying to argue we didn't advance any evidence of the people who were supposed to be on the plane, before then quoting me directly from my evidence in which i did just that

arguing that anonymity of the accounts of those due to be on the plane means it was generalised and unspecific info which is simply... untrue? anonymity does not maketh a lack of specificity beyond the absence of a name (which doesn't make a difference here)

this is an outright lie. https://twitter.com/zedhas3/status/1331626703022678018?s=20

as in what the QC is saying - he did actually say all that lol

we knew. we gave evidence to say we knew. we gave a statement to the cops on the night stating we knew.

incredibly difficult, frustrating and infuriating to watch and experience this

ok proceedings over for the day, but i have MANY THINGS TO SAY. i need a piss, a smoke and a shot and then i will be back bc that was fucking mad