Defence barristers walk out after judicial ruling in Filton 6 trial - while police make arrests outside court

For a third time over the last week, the Met police have made arrests outside Woolwich Crown Court of people holding signs communicating the principle of jury equity. The group of 6 people arrested were sitting peacefully displaying the signs: "Jurors have an absolute right to acquit according to their conscience" and “Even without legal defence jurors can still acquit on conscience”.

Meanwhile, inside Woolwich Crown Court, there has been a shocking development in the Filton case; five of the six defence barristers have left the trial following judicial rulings which cannot be reported until the end of the trial.

A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said today:

“In recent years, we have seen judicial rulings that banned climate campaigners from saying the words ‘fuel poverty’ and ‘climate change’ in their trials. Today we understand a judicial ruling has been given that goes even further, and as a response, the legal professionals representing five of the six defendants on trial in the Filton case have no choice but to leave the trial because they have been left with literally nothing they can say in closing arguments.”

The trial of the first six defendants from the group known as the ‘Filton24’ has reached the stage of closing arguments. Five of the six defendants will now be giving their own closing speeches as they have no legal representation.

[RT]

⚡️Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, a correspondent for the Axios website

President Trump told Axios he's going to keep Iran under a naval blockade until the regime agrees to a deal that addresses U.S. concerns about its nuclear program.

[Ak]

The price of oil doesn't look like it's deceasing any time soon.

AE

In his annual report examining the use of Britain's terrorism legislation during 2024, independent reviewer - barrister Jonathan ​Hall, KC - said the banning of pro-Palestine group Palestine Action had exposed "real uncertainty" over whether ​serious damage to property alone should qualify as terrorism.

He said the government risked stretching ‌counterterrorism laws beyond their original purpose by using such powers against activist groups, blurring the line between protests and national security threats.

[RT]