Apr. 16 2000 / Washington Post / T. R. Reid
NORWICH, England -- According to this story, if ever a criminal trial looked like an easy win for the prosecutor, the case of Regina v. Melchett is it.
The defendants were caught on videotape, after all, as they broke into William Brigham's farm and trashed his property. They readily admit they engaged in criminal damage and theft, the charges they now face in court.
In fact, though, Peter Melchett and his 27 fellow defendants are, the story says, likely to be acquitted after their three-week jury trial, most observers here in the Norwich Crown Court believe. The reason is simple: The farm they attacked was planted with genetically modified corn. In England today, that kind of farming is widely considered a greater evil than anything the accused vandals might have done.
The story says that genetically engineered seeds cost more than conventional hybrids, but they often can be grown with less water and chemical pesticide, saving farmers money. Few Americans have resisted the new crops; a study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded this month that the new genetic hybrids are basically the same as traditional crops.
But European consumers in general, and Britons in particular, are, the story says, highly skittish about "GMOs," the common shorthand here for "genetically modified organisms." Grocery stores and restaurants in Britain are required by a new law to tell consumers if any of their offerings include genetically modified material. Most have responded by banning all such "Frankenstein foods," and boasting loudly about it.
The story goes on to say that Melchett, executive director of the British arm of Greenpeace, concluded that any GMO crop was a danger to England's environment. So last July, he led 27 other protesters, plus a fleet of vehicles and a large media contingent, to the Brigham farm. They managed to destroy about half the test crop before police arrived and arrested them.
Since that moment, the defendants have received consistently sympathetic treatment in the British media. This is partly because their stance against GMO crops is popular, and partly because of the strong deference still paid here to inherited rank and title. Melchett, the group's leader, happens to be the fourth Baron Melchett, a title his family acquired a century ago. Everyone -- even the prosecutor trying to send him to jail for criminal damage -- addresses him as "Lord."
After the raid on Brigham's farm, Melchett made the rounds of Britain's evening TV shows like a conquering hero.
Accordingly, the story says, it is widely expected that the 12-member jury will acquit the defendants.
Vic Ready, who lives just down the road from the Brigham farm, was quoted as saying, "If I were a juror, I wouldn't convict Lord Melchett. Being an Englishman, I don't like mob rule, but what other way is there to put a brake to this?"
The local prosecutor, John Farmer, is battling not only the widespread fear of GMO crops but also the strong sense that life is imitating art in the Norwich courtroom.
All of Britain paid rapt attention last year to the trial of another well-known protester who destroyed a GMO test crop. That was Tommy Archer, one of the principals on the beloved BBC radio soap opera "The Archers."
When the fictional jury on that fictional program acquitted young Archer of criminal damage, major newspapers ran editorials praising the result.
Farmer, the prosecutor, and Judge David Mellor have reminded the jurors here that this trial is not a radio soap opera. But Tommy Archer used his radio trial as a way to broadcast his fears about genetic hybrids, and the real-life defendants here are doing the same.
Louise Edge, of Greenpeace was quoted as saying, "No matter what the jury does, the trial is a great opportunity. It gives Lord Melchett and all the others a chance to set out the dangers of this new kind of crop."
(posted without permission)
