Martin Fisher, Nicole Verity, Katy Amberly and Helen Simpson were among campaigners supporting Trudi Warner this week

CLIMATE change activists are celebrating after a judge dismissed a case against a woman for holding a jury rights placard outside a court.

Martin Fisher was among a group of Camden residents protesting in support of Trudi Warner outside the High Court last week, ahead of a ruling on Monday.

It was part of a national Defend Our Juries campaign drawing attention to a legal row over whether jurors should be able to consider the wider context of cases when agreeing a verdict.

Explaining why he had joined the protest Mr Fisher, a former criminal defence barrister now working as a psychotherapist in Primrose Hill, said: “All of us involved are concerned about climate breakdown. All of us have in our time signed petitions, written to MPs, read books, joined groups, made donations, and tried to influence government policy. But government policy keeps being bent in favour of the oil and gas companies.”

Ms Warner, 69, had last year observed a hearing in which defendants were prevented by the judge from telling the jury why they had chosen to break the law.

The judge was concerned that juries would reach a verdict based on emotional grounds, rather than the straight facts of the case. But campaigners say it is a basic right of jurors to make decisions based on their “conscience” and this has been a fundamental fixture of the judicial system dating back to the 17th century.

Ms Warner had held up a placard outside the Inner London Crown Court advising jurors to reach a verdict based on their “conscience”, but was later arrested for contempt of court.

Mr Fisher said: “These very words about conscience are on a plaque in the Old Bailey. It expresses a right that by the way we have exported across the world.”

Hundreds of protesters up and down the country had held up similar placards in defiance of prosecution of Ms Warner.

On Monday the High Court ruled that the case could not go ahead because the solicitor general’s case “does not disclose a reasonable basis for committal … the conduct did not amount to an act of contempt”.

Mr Fisher said he was concerned that public support for climate change protests had waned since the pandemic, due to the government being influenced by big business and the oil and gas companies.

He said: “By the time we came back online again after the pandemic, climate concerns had become characterised as bothersome and a threat to democracy – a public nuisance. That change in atmosphere I don’t think is accidental.”

He said it was difficult to know what a Labour government would do, adding: “We are gazing into the dark because Keir Starmer has said as little as possible.”

Mr Fisher said he had got into climate activism during the 2017 Extinction Rebellion protests that shut down the West End.

After the ruling another Camden campaigner, Helen Simpson, who lives in South Hampstead, said: “The ruling was that it was farcical to suggest that her behaviour was in the realm of contempt of court; it was, he indicated, information sharing.

“He also mentioned that if the case were to be considered from the human rights angle, her prosecution would have been a serious contravention of European law in respect to the Human Rights Act.

“During the campaign, which has been ongoing for the past year, every single court has seen a sign saying that juries have the right to acquit according to their conscience.”