Chris Packham has told a court he ‘selectively’ supports Just Stop Oil at the trial of an activist who scaled a gantry above the M25.
The BBC broadcaster made the comments while giving evidence as a defence witness in the trial of Cambridge music student Cressida Gethin.
The 22-year-old activist scaled the motorway near Heathrow as part of a protest by the group on July 20, 2022. She denies one count of causing a public nuisance contrary to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Mr Packham was among those stuck for four to five hours because of the disruption – a day after the UK’s hottest temperature of more than 40C had been recorded – as he travelled from Hampshire to Surrey.
He told Isleworth Crown Court he came to ‘sympathise’ with the fact he was forced to think about climate change, whilst also be concerned that he would be late to the recordings of the BBC’s Inside Our Autistic Minds programme.
The BBC broadcaster (left) standing with Cressida Gethin outside Isleworth Crown Court ahead of giving evidence as a defence witness
Ms Gething (pictured) denies one count of causing a public nuisance contrary to the Police, Crime , Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
Mr Packham was among those stuck for four to five hours because of the disruption – a day after the UK’s hottest temperature of more than 40C had been recorded
Under cross-examination by prosecutor Neil Griffin, he insisted his support for Just Stop Oil is selective and conditional.
The prosecutor asked: ‘You are not an independent witness, you support Just Stop Oil.’
Mr Packham replied: ‘I support some of their actions, selectively.’
The prosecutor continued: ‘You support them (Just Stop Oil), they love having you as a public figure?’
Mr Packham replied: ‘I selectively support things that they do. What they make of my support is up to them.
‘I probably don’t support them in the way that they want.’
The prosecutor asked about a Just Stop Oil press release relating to the Channel 4 documentary Is It Time To Break the Law?, which Mr Packham presented.
He insisted the press release had been ‘inaccurate’, that he had not advocated breaking the law and the programme would not have aired under broadcasting rules if he had called for law-breaking.
The defendant, who represented herself, asked Mr Packham in her cross-examination: ‘What were you feeling (when you were stuck)?’
He replied: ‘Knowing I was going to be late initially was causing me some concern.
‘I don’t like to fail the teams that I work with, even simply by being late.
‘Initially I felt very frustrated and then obviously I researched, on trying to navigate a quicker route, I discovered the reason was that protesters were active on the M25, and then I changed my thinking.
‘(I thought) I might as well use this to reflect again on why I am being delayed. That is what I chose to do.
‘I sat and contemplated the reason that might have motivated the protesters to take that action.
Earlier on Wednesday, the defendant (pictured) broke down in tears at points during cross-examination as she insisted she faced a ‘massive moral dilemma’ by engaging in the protest
Under cross-examination, Packham insisted his support for Just Stop Oil is selective and conditional
‘I thought about whether that action was productive and what it was doing. I took it as an opportunity to reflect on the fact I was in a traffic system sufficiently fragile, even normal disturbance would cause significant delay.
‘I reflected on the fact that I was sweating quite profusely, it was a day after the UK had recorded its highest ever temperature and two days previously the Government’s net zero plan had been declared illegal.
‘I understood, I think, why protesters were taking their action.
‘This led me to sympathise with the fact that I needed to be put in a position where I was forced to think about the gravity of the situation.
‘Rather than sit and fret and sweat, I thought I would run through a process that would make the experience positive.’
Earlier on Wednesday, the defendant broke down in tears at points during cross-examination as she insisted she faced a ‘massive moral dilemma’ by engaging in the protest.
The defendant, who has taken two years out of her studies, told the court she did not believe all lanes would end up closed and that she did not realise she was so close to Heathrow during the protest.
When asked whether she intended to cause ‘spectacular disruption’, she told the court she did not but soon ‘realised this was potentially a more effective protest than I thought it would be’.
She does not dispute scaling the gantry but denies that it amounts to the charge against her.
The trial continues.
