The Press report on Heather Stroud (“Fracking protest gran loses case”, The Press, August 31) is a perfect example of accurate reporting which unfortunately misses the whole truth. It fails to recognise Heather’s victory.

Heather, supported by the Earth Protector’s Trust and by former UN rapporteur Richard Falk, was testing the law, arguing that her chaining action was a defence against the far greater crime of ecocide - the deliberate destruction of the natural environment as manifested, for example, in fracking.

Her expert witness provided the powerful scientific evidence which links fracking with ecocide.

It is because ecocide is not a crime under law that Heather had to be found guilty as charged but, highly significantly, the judge gave the minimum sentence possible and the prosecution waived all costs.

This highlighted the law as lagging behind common sense and humanity.

Hence the applause in court for Heather’s courageous stand and for the fair judgement.

Highlighting the absurdity that ecocide is not a crime, is a vital step towards recognising the urgent need to make it a crime.

That is what shone out from the judge’s judgement and prosecution’s leniency - a beacon for our law-makers and a victory for a brave and determined grandmother.

Jayne Venables,

Fylingdale Avenue, York

Impressive actions from grandmother

WHILE factually correct, your report does not do justice to the victory Heather and we, her supporters, discern in these events.

Heather, not denying the facts, gave the judge no option under English law as I understand it but to find her guilty, imposing however the slightest of penalties, a conditional discharge.

Heather’s defence rested entirely on her “universal right as a person of conscience, to take action in an attempt to prevent irretrievable damage to our environment; (which) will have devastating consequences to all life systems”.

Heather regards this as a duty, not merely an entitlement.

Her actions are impressive in drawing public and legal attention to ecocide - not yet a crime - which we humans, less than one per cent of creation, are inflicting on nature - aiding and abetting the harm by pursuing the fracking agenda.

Humans and nature, Heather proclaims by her actions, are entirely interdependent.

Thank heavens for the discernment our legal system still encourages.

David Cragg-James,

Stonegrave, York

Court’s decision was a win for all of us

THE summing up and the decision by District Judge Adrian Lower was a win for all of us.

I never disputed the fact that I chained myself to the gate at KM8.

I have full respect for the Judge and Crown

Prosecutor, Neil Coxen.

The freedom I received in the court to speak a truth that neither the Government or the energy corporations want to hear, was testimony of British justice in a magistrates court, operating at its finest.

This freedom went beyond anything I could ever have imagined possible.

Played out in that building of historical significance it was almost Shakespearian in its depth.

It was testimonial in that “ecocide” has not yet been recognised in law (alongside genocide) as a serious crime against humanity.

When it is, my civil action of reclaiming democracy, albeit for a short time..... of raising the alarm to the dangers of fracking and our Government’s subordination to corporate power, will (one day) be recognised as being on the right side of history.

The law is always in catch-up of where the people want it to be.

There was no winning or losing as regards being guilty or not guilty.

In fact the guilty verdict, with the minimum sentence and no court costs, was clear recognition of that.

Heather Stroud,

Gilling East