A very pleasant cycle ride of 9 miles along the Regent’s
Canal and Greenway to Stratford Court, where protesters were beginning to
assemble. Around 40 people came to the
protest, including London’s Green Mayoral candidate, Sian Berry, several
members of veterans for peace and members of the Green Party from as far afield
as Cambridge and Dorset.
Much of the trial today is best described as a
shambles. It started off with an
argument over whether we should have a legal argument, and if so when. We, the defence, want to present a defence that
we were trying to prevent a crime. The
prosecution argued that we should not be allowed to prevent a defence of necessity
(which is related, but not the same and different precedents apply). As you can imagine the judge was not
impressed by this. The judge then asked
the prosecutor to try to agree with the defence when the arguments about
whether we could present either of our defences (prevention of crime and
reasonable behaviour (as protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European
Convention on Human Rights [1]. He also
asked for a proper timetable for the trial, which he had expected to see in
advance showing how long each witness etc would take.
It then became clear that the prosecution had not properly
served the video on the defence, by which I mean they had sent us DVDs, but
they were either blank or unreadable, and had not sent copies when so
requested. They had also not served anything
on Susannah Mengesha, who is defending herself.
This meant that during the first recess the prosecution had to copy all
their papers and give them to her with the result that the prosecutor failed to
do the other tasks that the judge had asked her to.
After another recess the trail proper got started at 12:30
when the prosecution read the cases against Angela Ditchfield and then Abdul
Aali and myself. The statement was
fairly short, and mostly (but not entirely accurate). Noting that we lay down in front of the low
loader, that they asked us to move, we didn’t respond and that they arrested us
and carried us to the pavement. The
prosecution then wanted to play video, but there was no facility to do so in
the court we were in, so we adjourned for lunch whilst officials found us
another courtroom. The judge also warned
the prosecutor that if she was using a mac she needed to make sure that she
could play the video as Macs do not work very well with the court system.
After lunch the judge was still not happy with the timetable
and the prosecutor had not sorted out her equipment, and the judge was loath to
use his computer as he put “It is not my job to deliver evidence for the
prosecution”. In the end one of the
defence lawyers used their computer to show the video. Which were really far too long and repetitive
and would certainly never win any prizes for anything really. Perhaps the most entertaining bit was seeing
the police failing to cut a chain with their own bolt cutters, and they had to
borrow a pair of the military (apparently) to cut the chain tying people to a
military vehicle (from the day before my protest).
The prosecutor then admitted they had lost the next video
they wanted! So the judge pissed off again asked her very pointedly whether the
video was even necessary. She said that it
added colour to the black and white statements.
The judge asked if it was really necessary and whether a whole hour was
needed (1 of the videos scheduled for tomorrow lasts over an hour!)
He then spent 15 minutes telling the defence lawyers that he
didn't want them repeating questions previous ones had asked (they said they
were cooperating and that wouldn't happen) and asked again if the video was
necessary as court time needs to be used well.
And that is as far as we got in one day. Tomorrow the prosecution should finish and
either we will have legal arguments about whether we can present a defence of
reasonableness and prevention of crime or we will have the start of the defence
itself.
Also there is a nice report in the Guardian
Also there is a nice report in the Guardian
[1] Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human
Rights
ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties
and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights
of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence,
or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
ARTICLE 11
Freedom of assembly
and association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to
join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these
rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for
the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not
prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights
by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the
State.
No comments:
Post a Comment