Day Four 08/11/24
After an epic three days in court, probably all concerned were happy that Friday was to be the last day of the trial. For the defendants and supporters, it began in the same way the previous three had – with banners and flyers out the front of the court reminding everyone that as the city went about their business, Boeing employees are building and selling weapons that have been decimating Palestine for the last year.
Once court proceedings began, it was time for Dave and Margie to present their legal submissions. Dave submitted that there was little evidence presented of lasting damage from pamphlets stuck on Boeing’s display cabinet, and that in any case his action could be justified as a genuine attempt to intervene in the ongoing slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian lives.
Margie’s defence was a bit more complex – as she has said in court several times, she is not merely defending herself but the right of all people in society to protest. So Margie’s first defence referenced not just the Queensland Human Rights Act, but also the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the General Comment 37 that spells out in greater detail what the right to political expression means.
This was all a bit out of the usual scope of the Magistrates Court, so there was quite a bit of legal toing and froing. But Margie persevered and delivered a spirited account of what a right to protest means in practice, how police should facilitate public political expression, and when it’s necessary to restrict it they should do so in a measured way – in other words give people a move on order rather than charge someone with assault for brushing past another person on their way through an open door.
Anyone familiar with the courts would know that their focus is generally quite limited and thus it is difficult to make these kind of arguments. But who could deny that the ability for everyday people to make effective political expression is of vital importance to our future? And where else can this be enforced if not in our society’s judicial system?
Margie proceeded to make her second defence – that any physical contact with the Boeing secretary that may have occurred was purely accidental, and that there was no intent to harm anyone on the 17th of January, and in fact steps had been taken to minimise the risk of harm. Due to the framing of intent given by the prosecutor, the magistrate indicated that acting in a way where brushing shoulders was foreseeable to a fair person would be enough to meet the threshold for intent to commit assault.
The final argument laid out by Margie was the necessity defence, previously attempted by climate activists. This defence can be explained using the analogy of speeding to drive someone to the hospital – that in an emergency where lives are at stake, it is justified to commit low level offences. I think many people would agree that any knowing contribution to the ongoing slaughter in Palestine is a much more immoral act than what our defendants have been accused of. But the magistrate did not seem to think this argument held much weight. Another good reminder that morality and legality do not always align.
Towards the end of proceedings, an exhausted Margie began eating almonds whilst the magistrate was speaking, which resulted Magistrate O’Neill venting her frustrations at the behaviour of the gallery throughout the trial, as well as unloading on Margie, to the effect of “I am not treating this as personal disrespect, although it definitely is, but you two have clearly shown disrespect for the entire court system throughout this trial”. She continued by referencing a comment Dave had made on day one of the trial about not recognising the legitimacy of this court on stolen land. I can understand why O’Neill displayed increasingly unsubtle frustration at the defendants and their sympathetic gallery. The magistrate was not interested in what she described as Margie’s theatre – that being her unabashed desire to talk about broad ideas unfortunately outside the scope of O’Neill’s interest, the morality of the war in Gaza and the slow erosion of the right to protest. On the other hand, the co-defendants and public who came in support did not always go along with with the court’s own theatre. Whether that be wearing shoes in court, eating, members of the gallery not rising when asked, it appeared as though the collective felt empowered in defying what has been outlined over the past four days as a government system founded on the genocide of First Nations people, and continues to facilitate genocide today.
Proceedings finalised at 1pm, and finally, after a gruelling week, Sprigg and Pestorius were able to have the weight of this trial off their shoulders until the 6th of December verdict (although their bail conditions have still been enlarged until this time). Both Dave and Margie have expressed immense gratitude to all who have shown support in any capacity. Self-representing is no easy feat – as well as the week itself, takes months of hard preparation. This is something they could not have accomplished without a strong community backing them, both inside and outside of court. After all, the face of injustice and hardship, it is community that keeps us going. As previously mentioned, their next and final appearance for this case is the 6th of December, where they will find out whether or not they are found guilty, and the sentencing of any guilty offences.
.
Day Three 07/11/24
Day three was certainly eventful! Containing all the drama into a few short paragraphs is not doing the day justice, however I hope to still be able to capture the essence of how the day played out. After a big first two days, the collective decided to meet directly outside the courthouse at 8:30am. Although we didn’t protest outside Boeing, it contained some of the most entertaining political street theatre I have seen in a long time. Defendant Margie Pestorius shouting that Boeing makes weapons to commit genocide with this gritty sounding viola under her chin. The viola playing was being energetically danced to by an older lady holding a long red cloth that waved in the breeze. This was being coupled with chalking and leafletting from other members of the assembly. It was a jarring sight for those passing by, that I’m sure is now imprinted in some of their brains.
The day was expected to commence with Margie’s cross-examining of co-defendant David Sprigg, however was delayed by prosecutor Harry Coburn asking that witness and co-defendant Jim Dowling not be allowed to enter the court, due to having seem him throughout the trial outside the court room without shoes on. Coburn stated something to the effect of there being “enough disrespect to the court already, but this simply being a step too far”. Jim was brought in and asked about his bare feet by the magistrate, and explained it was a rejection of our capitalist, materialist society. Luckily for Mr Dowling, the magistrate seemed to decide it was more hassle than it was worth trying to get him to submit the oppressive foot-prisons!
The co-defendants cross-examinations of each other was always going to be an uphill battle, given most of the questions they wanted to ask one another were outside of the scope of what the magistrate and prosecutor would allow. During Margie’s cross-examination, Dave discussed how the set of people had two meetings prior to the action on the 17th, where they discussed their demeanour, explicitly stating there would be no intimidation or threats to Boeing staff (or anyone else for that matter). He also discussed that these preventative measures have been frequently part of the accused persons’ modus operandi for decades. He also discussed the theory of how people powered non-violence incites change: When the public expresses themselves in one location, it allows stories to spread and people to inform themselves, resulting in lasting change. Sprigg went on to cite both local and international laws protecting the right to protest in the manner the dozen people did on January 17th. Margie’s cross-examination finished with Dave highlighting Margie’s calm demeanour on the day, and that she did not act agitated or move erratically during the demonstration.
After a brief, and relatively uneventful cross-examination from the prosecution, it was now Margie’s turn to take to the witness stand. She explained that her actions of the 17th of January were a result of the ongoing International Court of Justice investigation into Israel’s genocide on the people of Palestine. Because of this, she felt it was her duty to international law to take action to stop Australia’s facilitation of said genocide. She had also previously demonstrated in a similar matter at the Boeing building on numerous occasions without punishment.
As well as using this allotted time to defend herself, Pestorius also took this rare opportunity to take aim at the investigators of Operation Whiskey Clever who were spectating in the gallery. This came in the form of a fiery grilling about how the lead investigator Jayce Gilchrist attempted to deny Margie bail due to being deluded into believing her presence would “embolden others to commit more violent acts”. She also discussed how the day of the raids were specifically chosen to add bail restrictions denying the defendant the ability to attend a protest the following day, which was highlighted in her bail documents. During David’s cross-examination, Pestorius highlighted how neither herself nor Dave policed others on how to behave, but took responsible steps as some of the experienced activists in the demonstration to “keep upset as low as possible” whilst simultaneously having the opportunity for each demonstrator to express themselves.
It was at this moment, 11:59am, when the trial turned on its head a little bit, with prosecutor Coburn requesting to the magistrate that the particular of wilful damage be added to one of Margie’s charges (this was the particular the magistrate had previously described as ‘duplicitous’ on day one). Do to the logistics of the court proceedings, the magistrate decided to hold off making a decision on the matter until after the prosecutor’s cross-examination. After two and a half days of having to deal with bloody hippie activists, Coburn started to unravel and become increasingly unhinged in his questions and responses. Coburn began heavily attacking Margie’s character and honesty, and argued that by entering the reception area of Boeing, it was ‘foreseeable’ that she may have brushed pass the Boeing receptionist. He then went on to ask Margie if she was a fanatic and a zealot, to the amusement and bewilderment of the gallery. He continued by stating “I put to you Ms Pestorius, that you were so caught up in your zealous religious beliefs that you didn’t care whether or not you pushed over the top of Stacey or anyone else standing in your way”. Court then paused for lunch, with the decision being made on whether to add wilful damage to Margie’s case to be made upon resumption.
Given the attacks of their characters and this additional charge, I’m sure it must have been a very taxing morning for our defendants. However, when court resumed, things took a positive turn, when our hero of the day arrived; another co-defendants lawyer, who was here to push back on the addition of wilful damage to Margie’s case. It was a somewhat heated back and forth between our guardian angel lawyer and prosecutor Coburn, with overly complicated interpretation of case law that honestly went largely over my head. In any case, the defendants got their win for the day, with the particular ultimately being dropped.
Following Jim Dowling’s witness testimony, the day concluded with the prosecution delivering their closing argument for approximately one hour. For Sprigg, his argument was that the glass cabinet was designed to be “aesthetically pleasing” , and that sticking the posters to the cabinet interfered with its intended purpose, constituting wilful damage. As for Pestorius, Coburn went on to continue his tirade of personal attacks, stating Margie had an overinflated sense of self importance, and asking that ‘little weight’ be given to her evidence given her oppositional demeanour throughout the court proceedings. He also tried to claim that entering a space where accidentally touching someone is foreseeable constitutes assault, even if the touch was accidental. He concluded by suggesting both defendants were the types of people who would overpower someone if they found it necessary to their cause.
I’m sure it was a tiring day for both of our defendants. Today (Friday), they will each be given the opportunity to make submissions to finalise their defence, then the magistrate will adjourn to make her decision. Court will resume at 9:30am.
.
Day Two 06/11/24
Day two once again began at Boeing, where a smaller group of approximately fifteen protestors discussed Boeing’s weapons manufacturing with those passing by, and serenading employees with anti-war songs on their way to engineering war for the day. Despite having a smaller posse than yesterday, the energy amongst the crowd was enthusiastic and energetic, being rather pleased with themselves that they had made the morning’s Courier Mail.
Court resumed for the day at 9 am, although this resumption was short lived, as defendant David Sprigg began proceedings by vocalising his frustration at the magistrate stating witnesses didn’t know answers to questions prior to them answering them the previous day. This resulted in the magistrate taking approximately 45 minutes deliberating whether she had to recuse herself from the trial (she decided she did not).
Finally, at 10:52 am, the first witness of the day took to the stand. Detective Jayce Gilchrist is the lead investigator of Operation Whiskey Clever, the taskforce set up in response to another protest that took place at Ferra Engineering 9 days prior to the events at Boeing on January 17th. During Dave’s cross-examination, Gilchrist stated that the individuals in question first came to his attention as a result of a daily scan of incidents pertaining to “political and religious motivated violence”. Gilchrist went on to define violence according to an internal police document as any damage to property or persons, and that therefore, David Sprigg attaching paper to glass is an act of violence. Interestingly, this was contradicted by the magistrate, who interrupted Dave’s explanation of the politics of non-violence by stating he was “not accused of an offence of violence”.
Once codefendant Margie Pestorius was given her chance to cross-examine, it was revealed that Gilchrist was aware of the defendant prior to January 17th, and had known she had previously attended Boeing on January 8th. Furthermore, Gilchrist admitted to personally responding to the complaints at Boeing on the 17th because of Margie’s suspected presence, and that he believed Margie had played a key role in both the Boeing action and the Ferra one nine days earlier. This was brought out in an extended grilling served up by Margie to the detective, an impressive feat of amateur lawyer work.
Detective Gilchrist’s testimony was followed by another cop witness. During cross-examination, the defendants asked whether the police were aware of their obligations under international law (this did not result in a satisfactory answer). Shortly after, whilst discussing the police overreach throughout the investigation, Margie humorously lifted her feet up onto the table to show the shoes outlined in the police warrant. This resulted in Margie receiving another warning for “entertaining the gallery”. Whilst I’m not sure this was her primary objective, as someone in the gallery, I was certainly entertained. This was the final prosecution witness, and the prosecution closed their case at 3:14pm.
Prior to the defence giving their evidence, the prosecutor asked for contempt of court charges to be given if the defendants kept comparing Queensland Police and Boeing employees “just doing their job” in facilitating genocide, to other people who “just did their jobs” carrying out another genocide from a certain European country during the 1940’s.
The remainder of the day saw defendant Sprigg take to the witness stand. He had originally requested two hours to give his evidence, however, this was reduced to half an hour by the judge. Dave spent his half an hour explaining that he is an everyday person who is empowered to undertake non-violent direct action by his Christian beliefs, and strong desire for equality and peace. He went on to highlight Boeing’s war crimes across the world, including Palestine, and that this influenced his frame of mind the day he decided to protest the Boeing building.
Whilst Magistrate O’Neill didn’t seem to think this was the most strategic use of his time, I personally found it quite admirable that this was how he spent it, rather than minute legal matters such as whether glue or paste was used to attach the posters to the glass cabinet. To quote Noam Chomsky “the case was pursued by the government on grounds so narrow that the war was effectively excluded from consideration.”.
Once again, the community around the defendants has been an important part of the trial – from holding banners and handing out flyers in the morning, to offering moral support and gathering over lovingly home-cooked meals. It makes sense, given that ultimately it’s not just two individuals on trial here but the ability of any conscientious citizens to take action against a horrifically unjust war. But it also speaks to how, while the court is fixated on specific legal wordings and procedures, we activists hope for society to be radically transformed by courageous and creative acts of truth-telling mixed with caring acts of mutual support.
Court will resume at 9 am tomorrow, where Dave will be cross-examined by both the prosecution and other defendant, followed by the continuation of the defence’s evidence and witnesses.
.
Day One 05/11/24
On January 17, with Israel two months into a sustained slaughter of Palestinian lives in Gaza, a dozen or so Brisbane locals got together and decided they couldn’t remain bystanders in a genocide. They traced Israel’s weapons back to the source, and found Boeing’s office in Brisbane’s CBD – where Israel’s extensive use of their weapons was turning out to be very good for the company’s bottom line.
So the group walked into the office; holding banners, reciting Palestinian poetry and pasting pictures of dead Palestinians over Boeing’s display cabinet of model aeroplanes. For this the group were detained and charged. And now, ten months and many court appearances later, Margie Pestorius and David Sprigg are defending themselves in court and attempting to put Boeing on trial.
The day commenced with a crowd of around 40 people gathering at the scene of where heinous crimes had been committed by people speaking at court today. It also just so happened to be where our defendants were charged for their alleged offences. The defendants and some of their supporters gave testimonies discussing Boeing’s facilitation of genocides across the world, giving special mention to Hind, a 5 year old girl murdered by the Israeli Defence Force in what was described as a “planned execution”, by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor.
The group then marched to the court where defendants spoke to press, before heading into the courtroom for the day’s hearing. Prior to the magistrate entering, the prosecutor threw a couple curveballs to our two defendants pleading not guilty: One being a previously unknown plea deal (which they did not accept), and a sneaky additional particular to a charge, which, without boring and overcomplicating the matter, was dismissed by the magistrate and described as a “duplicitous” move.
The remainder of the morning had the court pre-occupied overcoming a number of tedious complications about how to proceed with the trial. Finally, at 11:52am, the first witness was called to the stand; a victim of the alleged assault. Though even by her account the alleged assault was more a soft brush on the arm as protesters walked past her and into Boeing’s reception. She also mentioned the events of January 17th had kept her up at night, although, I sadly suspect she did not spend these sleepless nights reflecting on her role in ongoing genocides around the world. When cross-examined, this witness, along with every other witness today, admitted that the protestors act in a peaceful and orderly manner. It was hard however to draw out any depth of understanding at all of the politics of the importance of people powered political expression – or the politics of nonviolence.
Two more witnesses followed – a young police officer, who further confirmed that all protestors acted in a calm and compliant manner, and a particularly moody Boeing employee. Throughout the cross-examination of witnesses, our defendants tried several times to make the point that their actions were performed to prevent the violation of international law, however this was dismissed repeatedly by the magistrate. Additionally, the two Boeing employee witnesses, who had worked for the company for four and five years respectively, were ‘unable’ to recall simple facts about Boeing, such as what the company makes, and the contents of their glass cabinet. If only staff were this forgetful when it came to sending arms shipments to bloodthirsty regimes.
It was a long day, and a huge effort by Dave and Margie self-representing in the unfriendly environs of the court. The support of friends and comrades I’m sure kept them going, and we will all be back tomorrow to do it again. Court will commence again at 9am, or stay tuned for another report from your loyal court reporters.
