the 20 did not dispute the evidence that they planned to disrupt Radcliff they argued that they were morally compelled to act. Therefore whether or not a cop was there is irrelevant to their convictions. They did not dispute the facts!

In contrast The 6 had argued (from before Marks outing) that even if there was a conspiracy the CPS had to prove they as indivduals had something to do with it.
So when Mark was outed they were in a position to draw attention to his role in coordination of the act, something the CPS couldn't stomach so they droped the case.

In my opinion the case would have been dropped without 3 of the six spouting off to the media, but hey ho they got another 15 minutes of fame.....

You last sentence is dead right, @rchie. Defendants talking, rather prattishly, to the media had no part in the case being dropped at all. It was about a lot more than "drawing attention" to Flash Mark's role..

There was an application for disclosure of shedloads of information on the subject which the prosecution had refused to disclose at the pre-trial stage, forcing the defence to apply to the court for it. It's hard to see the court being able to refuse such an application once the fact that Mark was a copper became known. So the prosecution very expensively bottled it and declined to present any evidence. It was not about media attention and it was not about Mark's offer to help the defence, which had been withdrawn before the application for disclosure was made to the court anyway.

It was a legal issue about revealing undercover state activities, which they're never prepared to thole, and it would have happened anyway. .Their only alternative would be have been to go for the full "security of the state", hearings in camera, secret evidence trip. What? On a charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass? Maximum sentence for substantive offence = 3 months I think, and most of those who'd admitted the facts got conditional discharges. They're not quite that bonkers yet.

I'm not one of them, but I know they approached the case as proud owners of their actions. I would imagine they don't feel like going back before the courts now (after 2 years of heavy legal shenanigans) and pretending they wouldn't have done any of this without flash. Yes technically he was an agent provocateur but there's a disturbing trend in the coverage of this story where activists are more and more insinuating that they never commit crimes unless an undercover cop incites them to do it. The ratcliffe 20 proudly stood up in the media spotlight and told the world they did it. To line up in flash's shadow now is, I imagine, the furthest thing from their minds.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/activists-kennedy-stone-police-undercover

They are apparently appealing on the basis that had kennedy's involvement been included in evidence provided by the CPS, the defence could have easily disproved the prosecution's main claim, that the action was not intended to stop emissions but instead as a publicity stunt. I've tried to cut the article down to the relevant points (below) but check the link for the full thing.

===============

Twenty environmental activists are seeking to overturn recent criminal convictions in the wake of the Guardian's revelations about a network of undercover police officers embedded deep in the movement.

Lawyers for the group claim that a failure to disclose the role of covert police operative Mark Kennedy during their trial may have led to a miscarriage of justice and have written to the Crown Prosecution Service demanding details of his role.

Six other activists walked free from court earlier this week after their lawyer, Mike Schwarz, demanded details of the part played by Kennedy in planning the environmental protest they took part in at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, near Nottingham, in 2009.

However, last month, in a separate trial, the 20 green campaigners were convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass during the same protest, after failing to convince a jury that their actions were designed to prevent immediate harm to human life and property from climate change.

"The police allowed this trial, unlike the later one, to run all the way to conviction," said Schwarz, whose firm, Bindmans, represents both groups of protesters. "In the light of events last week, this must be seen as a potential miscarriage of justice."

The defence used by the 20 convicted activists – known as "necessity" – is similar to one that has been used successfully in the past by environmental protesters. In 2008, six Greenpeace activists were acquitted of causing criminal damage after scaling a chimney at Kingsnorth power station after convincing jurors that they sought to protect property around the world threatened by climate change.

But the defence relies on convincing a jury that defendants genuinely believed they were acting through "necessity" to prevent death and serious injury caused by carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. During last month's trial of the six Ratcliffe-on-Soar defendants, the prosecution argued that they were not really intending to stop carbon emissions, but instead engaged in a publicity stunt.

But the activists' lawyers now believe that Kennedy, who they say was central to the protest from the moment the idea was hatched, would have been in a prime position to reject that claim.

Kennedy has been described by activists involved in the Ratcliffe action as having been "in the thick of it". His name appeared on receipts for the hire of a 7.5-tonne truck to transport equipment for the protest. He used his fake passport and driving license for the transaction, which cost a £778.

In a letter to the CPS seen by the Guardian, the lawyers have asked for disclosure of material relating to Kennedy "any other undercover officers or informers" that could have undermined the prosecution's case.

"The crown's case to the jury was that the defendants were lying when they told the jury in evidence that the action was about preventing carbon dioxide emissions," the letter said.

"The defendants believe that the undercover officer Mark Stone/PC Kennedy – and any other officer involved in the planning and implementation of the proposed action – would have been in a position to rebut these assertions. Mark Stone/PC Kennedy was well connected to the organisation of the action and was involved in planning discussions from an early stage."

The letter added: "He was a vehicle driver and present at the school before the arrival of the majority of campaigners. He had a central role in the black conveyor belt team. He had many discussions with individuals about the proposed action. He observed what many of the defendants did, discussed and sought to achieve."

It goes on to request disclosure of "any material, statements, briefing notes, contact logs or similar documents generated" generated by Kennedy or other spies.

Police have claimed that the plan to break into the power station would have endangered lives and was a serious criminal act. However, handing down sentences to 18 activists ranging from 18 months' conditional discharge to 90 hours' unpaid work, Judge Jonathan Teare gave a different view. He described them as individuals with "the highest possible motives".