Police need to answer "serious questions" about the use of an undercover officer who infiltrated a group accused of trying to shut down one of Britain's biggest power stations, their defence lawyer has said.
Mike Schwarz was speaking after the collapse of the trial of six people charged with conspiring to shut down the coal-fired Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire in 2009.
Their case was due to be heard at Nottingham Crown Court but was abandoned after the defence told the prosecution it planned to pursue disclosure relating to Pc Mark Kennedy before the trial judge.
The Crown Prosecution Service said the new information which led to the collapse of the trial was "not the existence of an undercover officer".
In a statement, it said: "Previously unavailable information that significantly undermined the prosecution's case came to light on Wednesday, 5 January 2011. In light of this information, the Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the case and decided there was no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction."
Mr Schwarz said: "My clients were not guilty. They did not agree to join in any plan to occupy the power station. The evidence of Pc Kennedy presumably confirmed this. Yet that evidence, had it been kept secret, could have led to a miscarriage of justice.
"Serious questions must be asked relating to the whole policing of this protest, from the use of undercover police officers, to the use of expensive and legally questionable mass pre-emptive arrests, to the use of pre-charge unaccountable bail conditions, to the seemingly arbitrary nature by which the 114 initially arrested were reduced to the final 26 who were eventually charged."
Mr Schwarz said the prosecution told the defence last Friday, almost 20 months after the investigation began, that "previously unavailable material that significantly undermines the prosecution case came to light on Wednesday January 5".
He continued: "The discovery of this material came at a time when the prosecution were informed that we planned to pursue disclosure of the evidence relating to Pc Kennedy before the trial judge. Unsurprisingly, the prosecution have declined to confirm whether the new material relates to Pc Kennedy. In my opinion, however, the two are obviously connected. The timing speaks for itself.
"These events beg wider serious questions. Would this evidence have been uncovered had the defence not become aware of it through other avenues? Is it appropriate that access to and decisions about disclosure of key evidence should exclusively be in the hands of a prosecution whose primary function is to secure convictions?"
Police need to answer "serious questions" about the use of an undercover officer who infiltrated a group accused of trying to shut down one of Britain's biggest power stations, their defence lawyer has said.
Mike Schwarz was speaking after the collapse of the trial of six people charged with conspiring to shut down the coal-fired Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire in 2009.
Their case was due to be heard at Nottingham Crown Court but was abandoned after the defence told the prosecution it planned to pursue disclosure relating to Pc Mark Kennedy before the trial judge.
The Crown Prosecution Service said the new information which led to the collapse of the trial was "not the existence of an undercover officer".
In a statement, it said: "Previously unavailable information that significantly undermined the prosecution's case came to light on Wednesday, 5 January 2011. In light of this information, the Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the case and decided there was no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction."
Mr Schwarz said: "My clients were not guilty. They did not agree to join in any plan to occupy the power station. The evidence of Pc Kennedy presumably confirmed this. Yet that evidence, had it been kept secret, could have led to a miscarriage of justice.
"Serious questions must be asked relating to the whole policing of this protest, from the use of undercover police officers, to the use of expensive and legally questionable mass pre-emptive arrests, to the use of pre-charge unaccountable bail conditions, to the seemingly arbitrary nature by which the 114 initially arrested were reduced to the final 26 who were eventually charged."
Mr Schwarz said the prosecution told the defence last Friday, almost 20 months after the investigation began, that "previously unavailable material that significantly undermines the prosecution case came to light on Wednesday January 5".
He continued: "The discovery of this material came at a time when the prosecution were informed that we planned to pursue disclosure of the evidence relating to Pc Kennedy before the trial judge. Unsurprisingly, the prosecution have declined to confirm whether the new material relates to Pc Kennedy. In my opinion, however, the two are obviously connected. The timing speaks for itself.
"These events beg wider serious questions. Would this evidence have been uncovered had the defence not become aware of it through other avenues? Is it appropriate that access to and decisions about disclosure of key evidence should exclusively be in the hands of a prosecution whose primary function is to secure convictions?"