Monday, May 27, 2024

The freedom of the press still furnishes that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide – Chicago Tribune.

HomeIssue 10No extraordinary emergency at Pine Gap: judge rules

No extraordinary emergency at Pine Gap: judge rules

p2367-pine-gap-kristain-l-rBy KIERAN FINNANE
The defences which the Peace Pilgrims have tried to raise in relation to entering the Pine Gap prohibited area have been ruled  out by Justice John Reeves.
Left: Military base at Pine Gap, photo by Kristian Laemmle-Ruff. 
The defences, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, were that they were not criminally responsible for their conduct because it was in response to a sudden or extraordinary emergency, and that the conduct was in defence of themselves and others.
The sudden or extraordinary emergency, they said, was the escalating incidence of drone strikes for which Pine Gap provides the targeting information. And disrupting this activity, they said, would help prevent the loss of innocent lives.
However, following Justice Reeves’ ruling, none of the evidence the Pilgrims gave in relation to these defences can be considered by the jury. (The reasons for his ruling will be published later.)
Rather, following directions from Justice Reeves tomorrow, the jury will have to decide simply whether the Crown has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the five entered the prohibited area and intended to do so, that the area is prohibited under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 and that the defendants were aware of that or reckless with respect to it.
The defendant Andrew Paine also faces one count of having a photographic device in the prohibited area.
In closing, Michael McHugh SC for the Crown said lawful, peaceful protest was a hallmark of our democracy, but there are limits, civil disobedience notwithstanding, giving as an example the Suffragettes. (This did not seem to help his argument, as the Suffragettes’ civil disobedience ultimately won the day – who now thinks they were wrong to do what they did?)
With respect to the facts, he said the Crown case is straightforward and much of it in any case has been admitted by the defendants.
In his closing address, Mr Paine spoke of the freedom that comes from doing what you believe is right and living a life you can be proud of, even when what you do is inconvenient, unpopular and can have serious consequences.
He accepted that the jury had to make their decision based on the facts but, he said, the facts about Pine Gap, usually hidden away,  were what he and his co-accused had tried to shine a light on.
Franz Dowling spoke of 15 people killed in a drone strike in Afghanistan shortly after the Pilgrims’ action: only one was the intended target.  His only regret was that the Pilgrims hadn’t succeeded in disrupting activities at the base to prevent this happening. He apologised to those innocents who lost their lives.
Tim Webb asked when those responsible for the killing of innocent civilians will be brought to justice. He spoke of the five not being allowed to run their defences and asked the jury to reach a fair and complete informed decision based on the facts.
Jim Dowling said that nobody could make the jury find the five guilty of a crime. He said if they considered that the crimes lie elsewhere they should find the five not guilty.
Mr McHugh noted this comment and said that no doubt Justice Reeves would direct the jury in relation to it.
Margaret Pestorius was last to her feet. She had put on her wedding dress, to draw into the court a sense of her late husband, Bryan Law, one of the Pine Gap Four found guilty and later acquitted on appeal of entering the Pine Gap prohibited area in 2005.
She has followed her conscience and will pay the price for it, she said. Her husband would have been proud of her, and their son will be proud of her.
She spoke of the cycle of grief, silence, denial and war and asked the jury to also reflect on this cycle. There’s a crack in everything, she said, and a crack can allow light in.

Below: The five Peace Pilgrims earlier this week when Margaret Pestorius was also wearing her wedding dress. The others are from left Franz Dowling, Jim Dowling, Andrew Paine and Timothy Webb. Photo by Cate Adams. 

p2499n Pine Gap 5 Cate Adams 660


  1. I wish I was on that jury. Imagine drone strikes here in Australia killing innocent people. Would that be an emergency?

  2. Ms Finnane. Are you sure that Michael McHugh SC was raising the example of the Suffragettes to support his argument that the Pine Gap Peace Pilgrims exceeded the limit of civil disobedience?
    Could it have been that he was saying the opposite when he said “the Suffragettes notwithstanding” ie saying that the Suffragette civil disobedience was a different situation to this Pine Gap prayerful singalong?
    After all, Emily Pankhurst got skittled by a horse and died for her beliefs. No disrespect to Emily whatsoever. She was truly gutsy. Your take on McHugh SC’s argument perhaps needs a bit of clarification in the words you used in your article?

  3. At least you guys have love and truth in your hearts. Hope the rest of the world catches up soon.You, if nothing else, are planting and nurturing those seeds. Love, light and laughter to all. XO

  4. Proud of you all, you are the bravest people I know. I pray for all those in these fruitless and deceptive wars and I hope the jury will be sympaththtic to all those beautiful people killed in war and your support for the lives of everyone. Blessings.

  5. Mr Bell. This is what Mr McHugh said, after mentioning that there are limits on protests and referring to civil disobedience: “Notwithstanding, for example, what the Suffragettes did in giving women the vote in the early 1900s. Australia was one of the first countries in the world, I think, to allow that. There were civil disobedience matters in respect of those occurrences. Of course, the law has changed and so it should be.”
    That sounds to me like a case for justifying civil disobedience rather than a case for accepting the limits to protest, which is what he was speaking to the jury about.

  6. Good on you all for your efforts to expose the purpose of Pine Gap. It is a crime against humanity and those involved should be the ones on trial.

  7. Best wishes all and thanks for your inspiring and re-humanising witness that can only be a threat to those who deny the humanity of the victims of war!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

error: Content is protected !!