The question your environment correspondent should really be addressing is: 'Why has it been ruled that the case should be heard without a jury?' What can a multi-billion dollar corporation have to fear from two unemployed British people?
As for the argument that the issues are too complex for ordinary people to understand, this is simply too unbelievable for words. Surely it is for the jury to decide whether or not it understands the facts - not the courts who have already, obviously, sat in judgment on the case.
In a democracy, David has every right to challenge Goliath if he believes in what he is doing, as these two people surely do.
But when Goliath goes to such lengths to prevent evidence being heard by a jury, one has to ask oneself what he is afraid of and why.