FRED.DK
< FRED.dk
Oversigt - Søg >
Statement of Ulla Røder About Ulla Røders trial for damaging a Tornado Jet in March 2003. Af Ulla Røder - december 2003
Se temaet

Fortsættes i Case Review Summary og The Role of the Jury.
 
In March 2003 I was charged with malicious damage to a Tornado Jet at the RAF Leuchars base. The Tornado Jet was to take part in the invasion of Iraq. The victims would be innocent civilians, who already have suffered from the 12 year starvation sanctions and regular bombings by the US and British air forces. 
 
I spent the next 5 months on remand in Cornton Vale Prison in Scotland - having refused bail conditions I was released unconditionally at the end of August 2003, as no interpreter could be present in the High Court when my time on remand was to have been extended a second time. 
 
Since then I have been waiting for the trial proceedings to start. This seems to present some difficulties. The trial date has been changed 5 times, the case has been adjourned 15 times and the whole defence has been undermined in various ways in an absolutely outrageous manner by practically all parties involved. I wish to make this statement to alert the public and people supporting me of the problems that I have faced in the preparations for trial so far.
 
People are the ones who makes the rules not a manipulating and collusive legal system hired by the Government.
Before opting out, I felt that the whole situation was becoming so kafkaesque that if I continued to participate in the circus I would be in imminent danger of being deprived of my right to speak and express myself during the case. Comprehending this danger, and after having talked this through with a friend, I felt confirmed that I had to take time to get this situation sorted out.
 
Now, after having distanced myself from the pressure, I have been able for the first time in months to sit down, calmly collect my thoughts and write a long case review and  this statement. I am determined to present myself to the court and respond responsibly to the charge brought against me, at the earliest possible date which can be arranged after I am satisfied of receiving a fair trial before a jury of my peers and with proper legal assistance. A warrant was issued for my arrest on the 15.10.03.
 
 “Would you like his lordship to find you guilty now or do you want a trial first?”
The immediate problem now is that the Judge has decided that the legal implications of the Lord Advocate Reference 2001 on this case have to be debated at an intermediate hearing. I do not consider my right to a fair trial upheld if this debate is going to take place before the trial. The debate will have implications on some of the main defence arguments and will thus undermine my whole defence, my right to bring witnesses and my right to an appeal. I am still awaiting an answer from my solicitor as to whether this decision can be appealed.
 
On the basis of the opinion given by the High Court in Edinburgh in the LAR 2001, the Crown is trying to prevent anyone who takes responsible humanitarian action from bringing any legal defence arguments, and to deny them any witnesses on the grounds that they are irrelevant. In other words, the judge simply determines the defendant is guilty, and he can instruct or dismiss the jury. You will be allowed only to plead in mitigation and hope for a lower sentence. (For information I have attached a historical briefing on the rights of a jury to nullify the law and vote against the instructions given by the judge).
 
Such a decision could set a precedent so that people accused  in similar future cases:
If this happens, any chance to justify preventative humanitarian actions will be precluded in Scotland, and the distinct possibility exists that other countries’ legal systems will begin to practice the same procedures.
 
When the court and government ignores to protect your human rights, you have to do it yourself.
I remember before the Lord Advocate Reference (LAR) hearing that devolution issues on human rights were raised by us regarding the 4 questions phrased. The Judge made a quick decision before the LAR hearing itself to deal with these devolution issues during the process of the LAR, and the matter was thus not dealt with before the hearing. The result was that the questions in this LAR remained as they were, despite the devolution issues stating this would breach our human rights. During the last hour of the LAR hearing the judges made a quick decision that the devolution issues had been dealt with during the hearing, which absolutely was not the case, and an objection was made but simply ignored. The High Court avoided in this way to discuss the most relevant issues of human rights raised before the LAR hearing. In the present case the court also has made a quick decision to have a debate before the trial, that will avoid most relevant legal matters in this case being dealt with in the trial itself, and the whole defence will in that way be interrupted or taken out of it’s context and therefore fall apart, not leaving a chance of a fair trial. If these legal arguments are not transcripted during the trial, the chance of appeal on those points is excluded, and this may set a precedent with severe consequences for future cases. In this case I will insist on getting the full defence into the trial and not accept that only half of the laws are debated as we experienced at the hearings of the LAR.
 
Since there are two parts in a trial, both parts should be allowed to speak out their legal arguments and bring witnesses of their own choice during a full trial in public. Any decision made on legal matters by the Judge at the trial  you can appeal to the High Court. These are basic human rights, and I am not going to allow the Sheriff’s Court to take these rights away in this case by forcing a debate through before the trial, which will never reach the High Court in an appeal. These matters will have to be dealt with, if not in the Scottish Legal system then it will have to go to Europe.
 
By these legal tricks, the court system is being ‘bombed’ back to rulings of the 17th century. This has to be stopped before the rights people fought for centuries to attain are stolen from us by a collusive legal system more or less controlled by a handful of powerful men in the Government and the Ministry of Defence. It’s not the laws that are wrong, it’s the way these laws are administered. Most laws do protect citizens, but the courts, in these cases, seem to turn a blind eye to the existing rule of both national and international law.
 
Public awareness is needed to stop the collusion in the courts.
I have in the last few months tried to sort out how to get on with this case in a way that will ensure me a fair trial. So far I have continued with my research and preparations while seeking more legal advice, but still find myself lacking a competent and willing defence team. Therefore, I am calling out for honourable Scottish Legal Professionals who are willing to help with the case, and whose first and only priority is the interests of the defence, to contact me A.S.A.P. at b_u_r_2003@yahoo.dk.
Also, I will need support from the public to be able to go on with this. Without public awareness and support during these hearings the court, prosecution and solicitors will be able to continue their collusion. The above mentioned problems are unfortunately not the only ones, as I will try to explain as best possible, without going into the details of my defence.
 
Restricted communications and hidden agendas are the best soil for manipulation to grow in.
In circumstances of extremely restricted communications, as experienced under the prisons regime, many small events over a long period can accumulate to result in a very confused picture of the situation. All along I have been trying to keep focused, but also to not allow any of these small accumulating events to be ignored. I have done what I could to make it clear to the people supporting me what has been going on, while not being able to talk defence matters or witnesses with them before the trial. However, it has not been easy to explain everything to everyone involved, and eventually my supporters, solicitors, media people and others surrounding the case have perhaps got a false picture of the reality of the last 9 months in this case.
 
These things, added to the injustice in the way Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court had dealt with the case, caused a lot of frustration to everyone. Being released helped my ability to deal with the case myself, however, the Free Ulla Campaign suddenly found all their work done and dealt with. I was free, but not as they had hoped during a fair trial hearing. This has still to come and hopefully everyone will stand up again when needed. A summary of the case review is attached. If you have questions or suggestions to me on this please e-mail to: b_u_r_2003@yahoo.dk.
 
It is time now to act with vigour to confront injustice and abuse, before protesters and dissenters end up behind bars for years and citizens will be forced to support and obey orders given by evil powerful rulers to maim or kill others. It’s a choice everyone has to make, whether this kind of weed shall be allowed to choke us and then spread to our neighbours, or whether we will pull it up with its root and throw it out of the system once and for all.
 
I would like to thank especially Dawn for her great work in the Free Ulla Campaign and all the others who have been present when needed most. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
 
Peace and Love
Ulla.

Fortsættes i Case Review Summary og The Role of the Jury.

Send gerne et link om denne tekst videre til folk, du mener fortjener at se den. Kopiering til videre udbredelse bør du først bede om tilladelse til. Tekster bliver fortsat opdateret og omskrevet, efterhånden som jeg bliver klogere. Ikke mindst fordi jeg tit ændrer mening - og gerne vil have at folk ser min nyeste version af den endegyldige tekst :). ©pdateret december 2003 - WebHamster@FRED.dk: Tom Vilmer Paamand