DSEI trial - Crown granted permission to proceed

Last October the Crown was granted permission for a judicial review of Judge Hamilton’s refusal to allow an appeal (by way of case stated) into our acquittal on charges of obstructing the highway.  You can see details of the case day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4 and day 5 and the appeal at here with the judges response here

The Crown “forgot” to pay their court fees and therefore the action was struck out.  However, the Crown has now asked that the rules be waived and that the case be allowed to proceed despite this failure.  This morning’s action was to allow the court to determine whether or not the Crown should be allowed to proceed.

262 pages have been served on the court, most of which (I have deleted some personal information and medical records) can be found here.

There were oral hearings this morning which concentrated on four areas

• The seriousness of the Crown’s omission
• The delay to justice
• The finality of proceedings
• The impact on the “interested parties” (ie the defendants).

It was conceded by the Crown that the failure to pay on time was a serious omission, but they then claimed that it was not paramount and that it was more important that justice be done than that the Crown be held to account for their failures.

The Crown claimed that the three month delay was immaterial as it had not caused any disruption such as needing to move hearings that had already been scheduled, and that there would be no additional costs resulting from the delay.

They then claimed that the issues are of significant public importance, as in the Barkshire case the issues of imminence, proportionality and democratic deficit were not addressed, and the judges said these issues “would have to be considered some other time” and this case offers opportunity to do so.

Finally, they also claimed that our acquittal was a miscarriage of justice that needed to be put right.

Our representatives argued that there is a strong argument for finality, and on four occasions we believed that the case had ended – on acquittal, when the judge refused to state case, when he refused to do so at the second time of asking and when the Crown failed to pay their fees and the case was closed by the court.

They also pointed out the affect that the case is having on the mental health of some of the interested parties.

They also argued that the more robust use of sanctions (ie not allowing the case to proceed) for failure to follow the rules is important and has been laid out in the guidelines.

Finally, it was argued that whilst the prosecution evidence was agreed the defence evidence was oral and would therefore be affected by fading memories which would have a disproportionate effect on the defence.

The verdict

Whilst the burden falls on the claimant to demonstrate why the sanction should be overturned the judge stated that this error “falls towards the bottom of seriousness as it was not done to gain procedural advantage”.

• The judge then basically re-iterated the Crown’s case that:
• The Email didn’t include demand for fee, but the that the email made clear that the email was not complete,
• There is at least an explanation for the breach
• There has been nonconsequential loss as a result of the breach
• The case does raise questions of law
• Remitting the case would not disadvantage defendants (through fading memories) as the evidence concerned the status of highway and no of vehicles
• The amount of time lost as a result of current failure is not major
• There are important legal issues to consider
• The time taken by dpp was not unreasonable in the circumstances
• Finality important however correct application of law important
• We would only have “hoped” that the case was over from 20 November when the case was struck

The judge thus entirely sided with the Crown, perhaps not surprising given David Lloyd Jones previous record defending the Paras in the Bloody Sunday Enquiry.

He also refused to impose the condition of not remitting the case, suggested by the claimant

Judicial Review - to be heard some time

Well, the High Court has now decided, in its wisdom, that there are grounds for hearing the judicial review. There is no timescale for the hearing at this stage, but something will happen at some time....

This is what they said:

In the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court

co Ref: 00/3570/2015

in the matter of an application for Judicial Review

The Queen on the application of DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 

 versus

STRATFORD MAGISTRATES COURT

Interested Parties: (1) ANGELA DITCHFIELD (2) ISA ABDULLA (3) THOMAS FRANKLIN (4) LAURA BUTLER (5) SUSANNA MENGESHA (6) BRAM VRANKEN (7) LUIS TORREJON (8) JAVIER NEIDHART

NOTIFICATION of the Judge's decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement(s) of Service filed by the Defendant and interested Parties

Order by The Honourable Mrs Justice Jefford 

Permission is hereby granted 

Observations:

1. The interested Parties were charged with offences of wilfuily obstructing the highway contrary to s. 137 of the Highways Act 1980 in trying to obstruct vehicles headed to the Defence Security Exhibition. Their defence was that they were using reasonable force to prevent illegal arms sales and/or crimes committed overseas.

2. Having regard to the authorities relied on in the Claimant's application tor permission, in particular, R v Jones. Birch v DPP and Barkshire. it is reasonably arguable that the learned District Judge was wrong in law in finding that a defence under 5.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 was available to the Interested Parties in the circumstances of this case and in acquitting them. The issue is also one of general public importance.

3. Further or alternatively, it is reasonably arguable that the learned District Judge was wrong in law in refusing to state a case on the grounds that the Claimant grounds of appeal were frivolous. 

Crown Prosecution Service letter to Judge Hamilton

We received this letter from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Mr Justice Hamilton some time ago, but decided that might be best not to publish it in the hope that the CPS would not pursue the judicial review.  However we are now publishing it.

F.A.O District Judge Angus Hamilton
Stratford Magistrates' Courts

Dear District Judge Hamilton

31 May 2016

Our Ref: 01/KF/4656015

DPP V. DITCHFIELD & ORS- PRE ACTION PROTOCOL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (LETTER BEFORE CLAIM)

We write further to your decision to decline to state a case in the above captioned proceedings. The decision in question is dated 5 May 2016, but was communicated to the Crown Prosecution Service on 20 May 2016.

The purpose of this letter is, respectfully, to invite your reconsideration of the decision for reasons set out below. Should you maintain your decision not to state a case the Crown Prosecution Service will have no alternative other than to apply for judicial review of your refusal, although, for reasons which are obvious, it is very much hoped that this course can be avoided.

As you are aware, the Crown Prosecution Service's application to state a case posed two questions for consideration by the High Court. Your refusal to state a case is made on the basis that the application is frivolous within the meaning of that term as set out in R v Norlh West Suffolk (Mildenha/1) Magistrates Court [1998] Env LR 9. The Crown Prosecution Service maintains its position that its application is and was properly made.

The starting point is section 111( 1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 rthe MCA 1980"). This section sets out the procedure for stating a case and makes clear that the function of the appellate court is to determine whether the decision of the magistrates' court is "wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction." The remedy of an appeal by way of case stated is available in relation to an error of law or a decision taken in excess of jurisdiction. The authorities make it clear that a decision on a questions of fact may give rise to an appeal by way of case stated, in particular, where it is alleged to be a decision of fact that no reasonable court could properly have reached on the evidence before it: see Oladimeji v DPP [2006] EWHC 1199 (Admin), a copy of which is enclosed for ease of reference.

Section 111 (5) of the MCA 1980 provides that justices may refuse to state a case where they are of the opinion that the application is "frivolous". In the Mildenhall case, supra, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of frivolous in this context. It was held that a refusal to state a case may arise "when the court considers the application to be futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic." Lord Bingham CJ observed that a refusal of a case on grounds of frivolity is not a decision to which justices will often come. For the reasons set out below, it is respectfully submitted that the application in the instant case is not futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. Indeed the contrary is the case.

In the course of your judgment you found that the availability of the defence contained in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 was "in a state of flux, development and consequent uncertainty. I therefore applied the principle that any uncertainty must be resolved in the defendant's favour and I agreed to hear the arguments in relation to the potential 'prevention of crime' defence and the supporting expert evidence". The decision to leave open the defence of the prevention of crime and the decision to admit evidence relating to that defence were clearly decisions of law. The observation that the law is in a state of flux is, with respect, difficult to reconcile with your refusal to state a case. The acknowledgment that the law is in a state of development suggests that clarification of the scope of the defence contained in section 3 is a matter of public importance and properly a matter for consideration by the High Court.

In the course of your judgment you also found that the "force" used by the defendants fell within the ambit of section 3. This interpretation of the phrase "use of force" also amounted to a decision of law. The case law referred to by the parties in the course of oral and written legal submissions acknowledged that whether actions such as those taken by the defendants could amount to force within the ambit of the section 3 defence has not yet been authoritatively determined. Hitherto, the courts have been prepared, for the sake of the argument, to assume that activities such as chaining oneself to a vehicle and pouring sugar in a petrol tank fell within the ambit of section 3. In so doing it has been noted that the question as to whether these types of activities involved the use of force for the purposes of section 3 would have to be decided on another occasion.

This issue of law is by no means frivolous and is properly included within question one for consideration by the High Court

As noted above, questions of law may also arise where a decision of fact is arguably one which was not open to the court. For this reason, ground 4 as set out in the Crown Prosecution Service's application (dated 29 April 2016) contends that in acquitting the defendants, on the basis that their actions were objectively reasonable in the context of a section 3 defence, was not a decision properly open to the court. This amounts to an error of law and is reflected in question 1 of the Crown Prosecution Service's application.

In Kracher v Leicester Magistrates Court [2013] EWHC 4628, the High Court emphasised the importance of challenging magistrates' courts decisions of law by way of case stated, rather than by way of judicial review. Again, we attach a copy for ease of reference. The questions in this case are plainly decisions of law and an appeal by way of case stated is unquestionably the appropriate route of appeal.

In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the questions included within the application are properly matters for consideration by the High Court and it would, accordingly, be appropriate to state a case.

For the reasons set out above, we respectfully invite you to reconsider your refusal to state a case. This will avoid the additional costs of seeking judicial review of your decision, which should be unnecessary and certainly is something the Crown Prosecution Service is anxious to avoid.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of the pre-action protocol for judicial review, we request that a response to this letter be provided by email (to xxxxxxx@cps.gsi.gov.uk) within 14 days (i.e. by 14 June 2016).

A copy of this letter has been provided to the legal representatives of the acquitted defendants in this case as prospective Interested Parties.

Yours faithfully

Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown's appeal

I am going to comment on the Crown's request for an appeal, and what I think of their reasons.  The Crown has offered four points to their appeal.  I will look at each of these in turn.  This is a purely personal view, and I have no legal training so anything I say could be (and probably is) wrong in law.

Ground 1

"The prevention of crime defence contained in the 1967 Act was not available to the defendants on the facts of the instant case.  The defendants’ real motives for acting as they did were to disrupt the activities of the arms fair, while drawing attention to their conscientious objection to the sale of arms and military equipment to certain overseas states. This provides no justification for obstructing the highway."

I wonder how the prosecution to their views about our "real motive".  All eight of us went on the stand and the prosecution had the opportunity to ask us any questions that they liked.  They could have asked about our motivations while we were on the stand.  Certainly I was not asked about this, as can be seen from the judgement.

Clearly, I had gone to protest against the arms fair and hoped we would get some publicity (by the way we are doing well see our press coverage), however that does not mean that I was not trying to prevent crime.  If I had seen a mugging there I would have intervened (and maybe got some good publicity).  My motivation for stopping the tank was to prevent crime.

But, my real concern with this one is that the prosecution seems to believe that without any evidence they can assert motivation.  If they have mind reading equipment then it is clearly faulty, and anyhow we should be told.  If they don't then how can they know what any of our real motivations were?

Ground 2

"The learned District Judge was wrong to have characterised the defendants’ conduct as constituting “force” for the purposes of section 3 of the 1967 Act."

I must admit I love this one.  The prosecution is saying that we did not use enough force! If we had more force then we would have this defence.  By the way, this from a prosecutor who said that if ww were acquitted we would feel entitled to blow up planes on the runway if they were carrying arms, or arrest anyone wearing a DSEI badge in case they were selling arms illegally. (would we be able to charge them with joint enterprise?).  That is one of the few places where the court broke out in laughter.

I thought that the judge dealt with this rather well, based on Adam Payter's submission including:

"Lord Hoffman in Jones & Millings assumed for the sake of argument that “chaining oneself to railings” constituted force for the purposes of argument (§71)."

 "As observed in the case comment on Birch v DPP [2000] Crim LR 301, “if it would, in certain circumstances, be lawful to use force, it would be very odd indeed if it were unlawful, in the same circumstances to do less harmful acts which would be crimes in the absence of a defence. If, for example, it would be reasonable in certain circumstances to drive into an intending assassin's vehicle to prevent him committing murder, it could hardly be unlawful to obstruct his passage along the highway by parking across the road. The answer seems to be that section 3 is a partial codification of the common law, and that the common law would still justify reasonable acts, other than the use of force, in the prevention of crime.”"

But it would certainly be odd if it is acceptable to use force to prevent a crime, but to do less and not use force would make it a crime.

Ground 3

Evidence to support the opinions of the defendants as to the legality of the acts in question was irrelevant and inadmissible.

I do not think that the expert evidence (I assume that is what is being referred to here, though I guess there is some reason for doubt as it doesn't actually say what evidence is irrelevant - perhaps the prosecution believes that the defence should not be allowed to submit any evidence?) was irrelevant.  It went to the very heart of the case, by showing that not only were we right subjectively (ie in our own opinion) to believe that crimes would be taking place at DSEI, but that objectively (seemingly in law that means a view held by a reasonable person - at least that is how it appeared to being used in court) crimes were taking place.

I am not competent to discuss the admissibility or otherwise of the evidence, but as at one point the prosecutor seemed to be saying that we needed objective evidence that crimes were taking place then it to rule out that evidence would be odd indeed.

Ground 4

The learned District Judge was wrong to have concluded that the type of force used was objectively reasonable, in the circumstances as the defendants perceived them to be, as there was no immediate and instant need to act as they, and it is unclear what crime was being prevented, or who was committing it.  

Ah yes, having told us in Ground 2 that we were not using enough force the prosecution appears to be admitting that we were using force, but now it is excessive.  So we were not using enough force, but it was excessive?

I am not sure how else we could have tried to stop these crimes.  We were prevented from attending DSEI and stopping the crimes in there. The police, HMRC and National Crime Agency were doing nothing, so I don't see what less we could have done.

Crown appeals arms fair protesters acquittal to High Court, claiming evidence of war crimes "irrelevant"

Below is our press statement about the appeal from the crown, but first a few comments.

I cannot say that I find the Crown appealing.  Whilst I am unsurprised that the Crown has chosen to appeal; especially given the prosecutor seemed to believe that if we were acquitted we would be entitled to "blow up a plane on the runway if it was carrying arms or arrest anyone wearing a DSEI badge".

I will put some comments on what I think of the appeal in another post.

The press release:

CROWN APPEALS ARMS FAIR PROTESTERS ACQUITTAL TO HIGH COURT, CLAIMING EVIDENCE OF WAR CRIMES "IRRELEVANT"

• The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has lodged an appeal against eight anti-arms trade activists who were acquitted of obstructing the highway, in an attempt to stop DSEI, one of the world’s largest arms fairs.
• The activists were acquitted after the Court accepted that they were seeking to prevent greater crimes – namely, the promotion of torture weapons and the sale of arms to countries immediately complicit in war crimes such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

On Friday the CPS submitted an Application to Magistrates’ Court to State a Case for an Appeal to the High Court under rule 35.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. If the CPS is successful then the matter will be heard in the High Court. 

Prevention of crime' was one of a number of defences run. During the trial, high profile expert witnesses from Amnesty, Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) and Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) gave evidence to the effect that illegal weapons and instruments of torture had been promoted for sale at DSEI, and that the arms fair is used to sell weapons knowing that they will be used for human rights abuses.

The DSEI (Defence & Security Equipment International) arms fair takes place every two years in London's Docklands, and is jointly organised by Clarion Events and the UK Government. Buyers include countries involved in conflict and from human rights abusing regimes. In September 2015 over 1500 exhibitors and 30,000 delegates attended from around the world, including most of the world's largest arms companies, displaying arms ranging from rifles to tanks, fighter jets, battleships, missiles, military electronics, surveillance and riot control equipment.

The eight anti-arms trade activists previously faced charges at Stratford Magistrates' Court arising from having disrupted the arms fair last September by blocking the access roads to the site with their bodies, or by locking themselves to the gates or vehicles. All eight defendants were acquitted of Obstructing the Highway on 15 April 2016.

The decision by the state to appeal has controversially come at the same time as the Government has ignored urgent calls from the House of Commons International Development Committee and the European Parliament, as well as leading NGOs, to impose an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia.

In a joint public statement, the defendants’ campaign said:

"We absolutely stand by our actions at the DSEI arms fair in seeking to prevent corporate and state support for torture and the mass indiscriminate killing of civilians. Our actions have continued to show where the interests of money and power truly lie. The state has invested a prolific amount of time and public money seeking to prosecute us. Many of us feel that perhaps if the state had chosen to focus their resources on those selling killing machines and torture weapons to human rights abusers then we would see some of the arms dealers in court, instead of those who are trying to prevent some of the vilest crimes including torture and war crimes."

In delivering comments on his judgement DJ Hamilton said:

" the court has been presented with clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence from three experts that criminal wrongdoing had occurred at  past DSEI exhibitions involving the sale of arms to countries which  then used those arms against civilian populations and the sale of  items that were inherently unlawful such as cluster munitions and  items designed for torture and inappropriate restraint. There was, as a result, a compelling inference that such activities would also take place at the 2015 DSEI exhibition.

“The court was also presented with clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence that such criminal activities are not being properly investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. Ample evidence of this was provided by the three experts. One can also look at the response of the police officers to whom these individual defendants complained about likely criminal activity occurring at the 2015 DSEI fair. Such complaints were not, apparently, taken seriously and no action was taken in relation to them.”

The defendants Isa Al-Aali (from Bahrain), Angela Ditchfield (from UK), Lisa Butler (from UK), Thomas Franklin (from UK), Javier Garate Neidhart (from Chile), Susannah Mengesha (from UK), Luis Tinoco Torrejon (from Peru) and Bram Vranken (from Belgium) are represented by Kelly’s Solicitors of Brighton, Hodge Jones & Allen of London and Bindman’s Solicitors of London. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The defendants’ solidarity campaign can be reached for comment by calling Vyara Gylsen on 07543 281020 or by emailing stopdsei2015@riseup.net

More information about the DSEI arms fair can be found at:

• Stop the Arms Fair: www.stopthearmsfair.org.uk/about/dsei/
• Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT): www.caat.org.uk

More information about the trial:

• Click here for CPS appeal (Note that this is the submission to the Magistrates' Court, and is subject to change)
• Click here for the full judgement of the acquittal.
• Click here and here for photographs of the trial, and here for photographs from the DSEI demonstrations.

ENDS

Press release: Eight anti-arms fair activists acquitted of charges

Bit late posting here, but our press release...

EIGHT ANTI-ARMS FAIR ACTIVISTS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES

• All defendants arrested during setting up of the 2015 DSEI Arms Fair in London Docklands
• Activists attempted to blockade deliveries of military equipment to UK government sponsored exhibition
• District Judge hears evidence of UK involvement in aggravating the humanitarian crisis in Yemen conflict, human rights abuses in Bahrain and the slaughter of Kurdish civilians by Turkey

The trial of 8 activists arrested during the September 2015 protest against the DSEI arms fair ended today with District Judge Angus Hamilton acquitting them of all charges. 

Isa Al-Aali (from Bahrain), Angela Ditchfield (from the UK), Lisa Butler (from the UK), Thomas Franklin (from the UK), Javier Gárate Neidhardt (from Chile), Susannah Mengesha (from the UK), Luis Tinoco Torrejon (from Peru) and Bram Vranken (from Belgium) all denied wilful obstruction of the highway.  

The court heard evidence about the brutality of Turkey against its Kurdish population. The Turkish state has declared 63 open-ended, round-the-clock curfews on many Kurdish cities since August 2015, using snipers, tanks and rockets to repress civilians, killing hundreds and internally displacing hundreds of thousands. Turkey's Exporters' Association was the International Partner of DSEI 2015 and sent a government and military delegation to the arms fair. 

Kat Hobbs, outreach co-ordinator at Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) also provided expert witness testimony that in the three years prior to the Arab Spring in 2011, UK arms contracts to Bahrain had been worth £6 million. Since that time UK arms exports to Bahrain have reached £45 million, drawing the conclusion that these weapons have been used to suppress civilian protesters demanding greater democracy. Bahrain had been invited by the UK Government to previous DSEI exhibitions in 2009, 2013 and 2015 despite the regime using weapons against pro-democracy protests.

The court heard further evidence of UK manufactured arms being sold to Saudi Arabia. UK-made equipment has been used extensively in the Saudi attacks on Yemen, including BAE Systems fighter jets and Raytheon’s Paveway bombs. The UK has licensed £2.8 billion worth of weaponry to Saudi since the bombing of Yemen began. Hobbs testified that munitions originally destined for the Royal Air Force had been redirected to Saudi.

The UK is complicit in creating the refugee crisis by arming the countries who are causing and profiting from it. The arms trade is a root cause of this crisis. Instead of building fences, detaining people, denying them their human rights at the borders and causing deaths with UK policies and actions, the UK must stop the arms trade, including events such as DSEI. 

The defendants admitted to the fact of blocking the highway but relied on a defence that they acted to prevent greater crimes.

In delivering comments on his judgement DJ Hamilton said:

“Clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence from the expert witnesses of wrongdoing at DSEI and compelling evidence that it took place in 2015. It was not appropriately investigated by the authorities. This could be inferred from the responses of the police officers, that they did not take the defendants’ allegations seriously.”

In a joint statement the defendants said:

"We were compelled to try to prevent war, repression, torture and genocide and we stand by our actions. 

We do not believe that we should have been on trial this week and denounce the UK government’s complicity and actions in supporting the arms trade; and in perpetuating war and repression around the world. We oppose the sale of arms based on corporate greed and profit and seek radical change.

We come from the UK, Bahrain, Belgium, Chile and Peru in the believe that as the arms trade takes place at a global scale, our resistance has to be global and it should have no borders. 

Over the week, we have put DSEI and the arms trade on trial and we have proven them to be illegitimate.  Our only regret is that we didn’t succeed in shutting down DSEI. 

Our thoughts are with the people who suffer as a result of the arms trade and the survivors of repressive regimes, torture, war and conflict.  We call on more people to join us in our efforts to shut down DSEI 2017 and take collective action to end the arms trade.

We also express our solidarity with DPRTE Cardiff arms fair defendants who are also currently facing trial. We will continue to actively oppose DSEI and the arms trade."

The defendants were represented in court by Kellys Solicitors of Brighton, Hodge Jones & Allen of London and Bindmans Solicitors of London.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

The defendants’ campaign can be reached for comment at:

stopdsei2015@riseup.net 

Vyara Gylsen -  07543281020

More information about the DSEI arms fair can be found at:

·      Stop the Arms Fair: www.stopthearmsfair.org.uk/about/dsei/

·      Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT): www.caat.org.uk

ENDS

                            

Day 5 – the day of Judgement

We had been required to attend at 10:30 for 11:00, but did not go into court until 11:45 when the judge had finished drafting his judgement.

Prior to that we had a merry time being photographed, hanging out, working out what we might do afterwards and all that type of thing.

The judge made clear that what he would be reading today was an outline of his judgement and that some of the arguments needed to be written out in more detail before he finished, but that it had the main conclusions and meant that we could finish the case today.

Before the judgement he made some comments and the very poor case management, some of which lay with the court for not providing the correct papers on time, not dealing properly with the case witness requirements etc.  There should have been a pre-trial review 4-6 weeks before the hearing to ensure that everything was in place, and what was not already in place would be.  The prosecution was at fault for failing to provide what was requested at discovery, for providing a skeleton argument for a defence that was not being put instead of the defences that were being put, for not telling the court that they needed to play CCTV so the hearing could be scheduled in the correct court and for not ensuring that they could play the videos in the court (one of the defence team had to use their computer to play the prosecution videos – but then they were helpful to us).  He also said Ms Daly commendable but not as detailed or coherent as he would wish in her arguments.  He was annoyed with the defence for failing to return to court when the prosecution did not hand over items in discovery, for late delivery of exhibits and skeleton arguments and producing evidence during the trial.  In particular, he mentioned the map showing the road is a private road without having shared it with the court or prosecution in advance and then the prosecution for introducing photos conceding the point the following day, with the result that the question of whether it is a private road was not properly explored.

Finally, he criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for not providing Ms Daly with any support when she was against four briefs and a defendant in person and there was so much later material.

In short it was only by luck that we finished in accordance with the timetable, not good case management.

Next he turned to the question of whether he should consider our other defences even if he were to acquit us on the grounds of prevention of crime, and ruled that he did not have to; in part as it would probably make little difference as to whether there was an appeal.

He pointed out there were four defences that were being offered, and the prosecution would have to show that they all failed, that is the prosecution would have to show that we were:

1.     Not acting to prevent a crime;

2.     Unreasonable – that is the nature of alleged obstruction was not reasonable in terms of our rights under articles (9), 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

3.     In the cases of Lisa Butler and Susannah Mengesha whether they were on a highway, as the prosecution agreed that it was a private road;

4.     Causing an obstruction or as we claimed vehicles were able to move around us.

His judgement only addresses the first question, of prevention of crime.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states a person may use such force as is reasonable and that a person’s belief must be accepted subjectively, and it must be assumed that the crime would happen without a successful intervention so long as the defendant honestly believes that the crime would occur and that the force used was reasonable.

It is important to take into account the degree of the evil to be prevented and what other possible action might be used to prevent it.  Section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2008 is only directly concerned with force against the person.  Ms Daly claimed we were not using force and therefore the section is not applicable; and therefore would need to rely self-help which only available in most limited circumstances, as these activities are normally reserved to the police, armed forces etc.  One is normally expected to call in the police and not take law into one’s own hands.  The Law takes deepest suspicion of self-help.

The prosecutor also referred to failure of the action, which was foreseeable and therefore to illegitimate and might open the floodgates to any action against anything.

Mr Payter dealt with the point commendably – force need not be against the person. If it is lawful to use force, then it would be very peculiar if one was not allowed to use less.  The law is a partial codification, not a complete codification.  The judge prefers Mr Payter’s analysis and therefore it does not preclude a section 3 or common law defence.

When it came to self-help the judge said that there was clear evidence of unlawful action which was not challenged by prosecution. As a result, there was a compelling inference that similar crimes were occurring at DSEI 2015. Further, there was clear and compelling evidence that the authorities were taking no action, and those who complained were not taken seriously.

As to inconvenience. He could not accept that collateral inconvenience renders it illegitimate and no sources were cited by Ms Daly to suggest other.  The judge argued that failure cannot make it illegitimate or a frail elderly person who ineffectually grabs a thief’s arm could be prosecuted for assault whilst someone who punched the thief could not.

Finally, he accepted Mr Payter’s three stage test, and that it applies to all eight defendants.  That is the prosecution need to show that:

1.     We did not intend to prevent a crime;

2.     We did not believe the force we used was necessary;

3.     The force that we used was not reasonable.

He was not sure on any of these questions and therefore he had to decide for defendants.  We were free to go.

He also made an award of costs on our behalf.

There was cheering in court, and much celebration outside.

 And finally, just some of the coverage elsewhere:

• The Guardian: Court dismisses charges against London arms fair protesters
• The Independent: Protesters who blockaded London arms trade fair acquittedafter judge sees evidence of illegal weapons on sale
• Hampstead and Highate Express: Eight acquitted including former Chairman of Camden Greensas Judge accepts they were trying to prevent illegal arms dealing at DSEI fair
• Campaigners Cleared Over Arms Fair Protest Against Sales ToAuthoritarian Regimes

and do sign up to stop the next DSEI arms fair in 2017

Day 4 of the DSEI trial

Everyone was in very good cheer this morning and ready for another day in court.

We started with expert evidence from Kat Hobbs, who is Local outreach coordinator for CAAT (The Campaign Against the Arms Trade), an organisation which was awarded the alternative Nobel Prize in 2012.

She discussed how DSEI is organised Clarendon and the UK Trade and Investment, a government department to support UK Trade; but 54% of their staff are devoted to working on defence and security, and a key part of that work is organising and supporting arms fairs around the world.

To editorialise I find it shocking and appalling that over half of the body to promote UK trade is devoted to the arms industry, no wonder other industries are struggling.

Arms fairs are “meet and great” events for relationship building and so that customers can see what they might be buying.  DSEI is one of largest in the world, which showcases everything (air, sea and land weapons).  61 countries formally invited by the government, and many more are invited by Clarendon who advertise it as a “Place to do business”.  Of those 61 14 are classified as being authoritarian and 6 are at war, including Saudi Arabia; A country on the list of those raising most concern for human rights abuse.

The memorandum of understanding between the UK government and Clarendon says that the government will chaperone delegates around the fair.  Asked whether deals happen at the fair she pointed out that suites are provided for private discussions, so it is impossible to know everything that goes on.  However, at least one contract signed at fair between Turkish government and Lockheed Martin

Moving on to illegality at the fair, she pointed to the Pakistan government promoting cluster bombs in 2009, which was discovered by civil society; not by either DSEI organisers or government agencies, with the result that the company was ejected, but no other action was taken, and they were allowed to return in 2011 when they were even more blatantly marketing them.  At another stand a journalist from the Independent newspaper was told quite openly that the objects on sale were for torture.

Kat also pointed out that there is a clear contradiction between selling arms to a country and then complaining about human rights abuse, especially as legal arms can be used illegally.  The government claims that will not license where they are likely to be used for internal repression or external aggression, however they have been increasing numbers of arms export licenses for Saudi Arabia during Yemen conflict; even to the extent that is a marker against Saudi Arabia to more actively promote arms to them.

The UK government had actual knowledge of breaches of human rights law by Saudi Arabia in Yemen since at least May 2015 (ie well before DSEI), yet since start of conflict they have licensed at least £2.8 billion of arms.  Saudi Arabia is by far the largest consumer of British weapons and we are the largest supplier to them.  There has been a significant increase in the weapons sold since start of war which implies that they are being used in the conflict.

The attitude of the government to enforcement is extremely poor and has worsened with current government.  The government has never been interested in enforcing arms controls, and the parliamentary committee on arms control didn’t meet for the first nine months of the current parliament and the government needed to be pressed to allow it to start.  It also now harder for independent observers to get into the fair;

For instance, Ollie Sprague was not allowed in this year.

Bahrain has bought £45 million of UK weapons since uprising in 2011. Whereas they only spent £6 million in the previous three years,

The Turkish government has not signed the convention on cluster weapons and have a stock pile of them.  They have carried out numerous human rights violations including collective punishment in Kurdish region; which have included curfews, shoot-to-kill, shelling of communities using Tanks, shells, ammunition supplied by Britain.

Despite this Turkey was the sole international partner at the arms fair and had their own tent and delegation, which amongst other things exhibited military tear gas

Next on the stand was Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, director of the Bahrain Institute for rights and democracy (BIRD).  In 2011 Mr Alwadaei was imprisoned and tortured for taking part in a peaceful protest calling for reform.  BIRD is a small organisation that monitors human rights in Bahrain, The UK government’s relationship with Bahrain and, works with other human rights organisations active in Bahrain. Bahrain is a hereditary absolute monarchy and all important ministers are family members.  Anyone calling for reforms imprisoned and tortured.

In 2011 there was a massive protest movement, the biggest in Bahrain’s history.  Many thousands protested and were crushed with force which included forces from Saudi Arabia. Thousands were arrested and hundreds killed.

UK is one of key arms suppliers to Bahrain.  In 2011 tear gas canisters and armed vehicles being used Saudi Arabian forces in Bahrain came from the UK.  The tear gas was weaponised, and used against peaceful protesters causing many of the deaths.  Excessive use of tear gas was also used as collective punishment, by using it not just against protestors but on whole surrounding areas.

Shot guns and buckshot have been used against protestor, including from very close range. Dozens of people, including a 14 year old have been killed by shotgun

Mr Alwadaei has himself been exposed to gunshots.

Despite this Bahrain was invited to DSEI in 2011, 2013 and 2015.

In October 2014 the High Court quashed the diplomatic immunity of Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa because of allegations of torture.  Despite this he has been a regular visitor to the UK since then, including in Oct 2014, but has never been arrested.  Showing the failure of the government to take action.

Working with HR watch.  2015 listed 14? Cases of torture and stated that the use of torture is systematic.

According to Amnesty Bahrain has imprisoned of 21 high profile people for leading the protest.  And recorded cases of harsh torture, including of human rights defenders.  Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry: (BICI) report, commissioned by king, showed that the government was using torture and that confessions were extracted by torture resulting in life imprisonment and worse.

Bahrain one of the highest percentages of political prisoners with 3,000-4,000 political in prisoners out of a population of 480,000.  Reporters Without Borders places Bahrain at 163 (alongside Somalia) in terms of a free press.

We then moved on to character references.  And all those presented showed that people were excellent and wonderful people; and I can assure that the others are.  Unfortunately, because my character references did not include the date of birth of the witnessed the prosecution would not accept them as they could not check that they were people of good character (ie not criminals).  My grateful thanks to Natalie Bennet, Sian Berry, Margaret Taylor, Juliet Goldbart and Malcolm Ryan for providing them.  They certainly made my head swell with statements like “He has a great commitment to the work of our party and its core principles of sustainability, social justice, peace and non-violence. I cannot vouch highly enough for his character and the upstanding nature of his work in the service of the community and the Green Party” from Sian and “I know that Tom has a concern and passion about the impact of promoting the arms trade and I share this concern which lead me to protest against the London arms fair myself, an event I consider to be against the security of the people of Britain.” From Natalie.

Fortunately, everyone seemed to agree that we were all of good standing anyhow and that as the judge put it to Susannah Mengesha, who had not produced any, “they are like one quarter of one cherry on the top of the cake in this case”.

Because the judge only wanted a summary of the statements which were gone through very quickly my notes are poor so the following is merely an attempt at reconstruction.

Angela Ditchfield: At university while others were out drinking Angela was highly focused on what she wanted to do – to fight social injustice and be kind.  She is a stalwart of the local church, and cares passionately about justice and supporting families in Uganda

Javier Garate is trustworthy, truthful and committed to his principles including to resolution of conflict without violence.  He works to scale down arms trade.

Mr Rankin has never hurt anyone, is reliable and responsible and has campaigned against NATO activity.

Luis Javier Tinoco Torrejon is engaged in peace and solidarity and is always respectful to those who he works against, so very surprised to hear he had been arrested.

Angela Butler’s witnesses are impressed by the integrity of her moral belief, and she cares deeply about others and is kindest most sensitive and honest person the witness knows.

With that the defence closed and we moved on to legal arguments.

To be honest these were sometimes difficult to follow, especially the prosecution one.  In part because she was not always very coherent, she was also interrupted by the judge for clarification many times and she would just refer to something I don’t know (such as section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2008).  I will quote one part of this as there was a heated discussion between the judge and the prosecutor over what it might mean.

76Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.

..

(3) The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.

(4) If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—

(a) the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but

(b) if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—

(i) it was mistaken, or

(ii) (if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.

It is worth remembering that this arose out of a couple of cases where householders were convicted of murder and manslaughter for killing burglars; but the point is that it allows the use of force to prevent crime.

First there was a discussion on the difference between clarification and codification (clarification changes things and makes them clear, while codification just brings order to what is).  If the act is codification, then it doesn’t affect previous case law; if it is clarification then it can.  The judge pointed out that the court of appeal describes it as clarification; therefore, Hoffman in Jones is out of date.

They then moved on to a discussion of sections 3 and 4, and whether the test required is “objective” (which I presume means what a reasonable person would think) or “subjective” (what the defendant thinks). The prosecutor was trying to argue that 4b still requires objective view and despite her three or four attempts to state it the judge would have none of it.  Several times he asked her for her authority for her opinion, and she could give none.

She then suggested that Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967[1] does not apply as we did not use sufficient force!  Wonderful I thought.  Those who chained themselves to lorries or gates might get off as they used force; whereas Isa and I who “merely” lay down in front of the tank could be convicted.  Would that not be truly ironic, and suggest that next time I will need to use greater force not to be convicted!

As the prosecutor said “The use of force may require chaining yourself to something; just lying in the road may not allow a section 3 defence” As the appeal says “if we allow for the sake of argument that chaining yourself to railings or putting sugar in a petrol tank is violence”.

She then argued that we cannot take action against as there is a presumption that the state is functioning effectively “a tight control over the use is force is necessary to prevent a slide into anarchy”.  The right to the use of force is even more prescribed where it is not ourself or our personal property (or close family). If we cannot get courts to intervene then we need to use democratic methods to effect change, not take the law into our own hands.

Judge asked is it illegitimate to look at what has actually happened? (ie that the laws are in place but the state has not enforced them). And he said that collateral effects (ie on bystanders) doesn’t of itself make action illegitimate eg searches at airports.

At that point the prosecutor rather lost it and suggested that if the defence of prevention of crime were allowed then we would be entitled to blow up a plane with arms destined for Saudi Arabia, or be entitled to arrest anyone with a DSEI badge in case they sell arms illegally.

She then argued that the crime is too remote from the action for the action to be allowed; and allowing this would result in anarchy.  “Where can one draw the line if the defence is allowed”

The defence then presented a more coherent case something like:

It would be absurd if it required the use force to be allowed the defence of preventing crime, and a lesser action did not allow such a defence.  And in any case force is minimal eg pushing a door that is already ajar requires force.  (I hope any physicists amongst you approve).

When considering the case, it must be assumed that the actions that the defendants were trying to stop would happen, and then

a)    Did the defendant honestly belief

b)    Was the force used reasonable –

Inconveniencing bystanders, even committing a lesser crime is allowed in the prevention of crime eg shoving someone out of the way (assault) to stop a killer is permitted.

Crime enforcement is duty of all not just the police.  The police are in fact just citizens in uniform. 

There was then a discussion of two cases brought by Blackburn (a Labour MP and supporter of Lord Longford).  The Metropolitan police had an explicit policy to not enforce the gambling laws, and he took them to court over it.  I am not quite sure what the relevance of that was. In the other case (Blackburn 2) Blackburn went around Soho collecting porn, gave it to the police to prosecute; but they took no action.  Lord Denning said there was a gap that needed to be filled and it was reasonable for Blackburn to intervene.  The law recognises that in some cases self-help can be justified.  Only when there is no reasonable alternative.

My lawyer, Adeela Khan, suggested that I was applying force to road (which I guess while true would make the law of gravity a defence in the prevention of crime) or failing that I have a common law defence of preventing crime that predates the Criminal Law Act 1967.

I had achieved no action as a result of my political activity and therefore I had no other possibility than of taking action myself as non-direct action had made no difference, as stated by Olly Sprague.

We had clearly shown the nexus between that tank and Saudi Arabia, the largest buyer of UK arms and Bahrain also a large buyer.

Collateral damage very slight because cars and buses could move around the vehicle.

We were also reminded that it is for the prosecution to show that the weapons would not be used illegally, not for the defence to prove it.

At that the judge adjourned the case to tomorrow for his decision on the defence of prevention of crime.

If we are acquitted, it will end there.  If not, then we will present arguments on reasonableness and in the cases of Susannah and Lisa on whether it was a public highway.

Good article in the Guardian
And great Article in the Ham and High

---

[1] 3 Use of force in making arrest, etc.

(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

Second day of the trial

A big day today.  We got some trial done, some judgements and I appeared on the stand.  But you will have to skip towards the bottom if you want to read that first.

We started the day with some more rulings on proceedings.  The prosecution had failed to provide the defence with copies of some of the evidence that they had requested, despite repeated requests.  However, because they had not been back to court to demand it from the prosecution the judge ruled that the prosecution do not have to provide it unless they wish to.  One to the prosecution then.

We then had the first witness of the day; really the first witness as yesterday they had only answered a couple of questions about the videos we were being shown.  First up was Mr Salman a security guard / traffic manager working for the Excel Centre who had been on duty on the day that Lisa Butler and Susannah Mengesha were arrested.  I am not quite sure why he had been selected as he added little light to the subject.  His job was to direct traffic at the first of two gates at the Excel Centre and ensure that only traffic for the Excel Centre (identified by Excel or DSEI / G4S passes), a block of flats and a restaurant went down the road.  He said that G4S had already closed and blocked the inner gates before Angela and Susannah fixed themselves to the fence with D-locks (so presumably the traffic was already blocked?).

At one point the judge got a bit snappy with both prosecution and defence lawyers and said to Mr Salman “Any irritation is purely with lawyers”, and told the prosecution that they had spent far more time than they had allocated for herself in the timetable.  Still she went on for another five minutes to little effect.

Next up was PC Salem who believes in magic as he said, and I quote “after release from custody the key magically appeared and she released herself”.  Digging a little deeper the police were unable to remove the D-lock from Susannah’s neck, and had strip-searched her at the police station hoping to find a key which she had already told them that she didn’t have.  It also became clear that he had not seen her without the D-lock, so it would seem the magic was a surmise.

Next up was PC Bo or Beau I couldn’t read the name badge, but it was pronounced like them.  He stated that Angela was attached to the fence with a D-lock around the fence and they had to get the MoD police to release her.  He also stated that no vehicles could pass her on the road, but had to agree that photographs of the scene showed two large police vans going through the gate whilst Angela was locked to it.

After that we had a preliminary ruling from the judge that he was minded to allow us to present the defence we wish to.  He said that having read the prosecution’s skeleton argument he could see nothing that clearly ruled out the defence, and as there was ambiguity he would have to come down on the side of the defence, and, to quote “unless she could pull a rabbit from a hat he would allow the defence to be presented”.  The rulings themselves were quite entertaining as we had a high court judge saying that a law lord was wrong.  Hoffman had said the defence could rarely be presented, but that was before the Human Rights Act, and the later case said he was wrong.  The appeal court said it had reservations and would have to visit the issue later.  The judge also said that the level of criminality in this case was less than in the Hoffman case so the defence was more likely to be allowed.

So, in the ambiguity he would rule for the defence.  The prosecution then tried to use a case where the judge had said nothing on the topic, and was slapped down by the judge who ruled that we could give our defences.  A big one for the defence.

The afternoon was taken with the examination of the first defendants.

First up was Angela Ditchfield, who has an interesting past working in mission hospitals, standing as a Green Party Party councillor.  She is particularly concerned with the sales of arms to countries with bad human rights records that use them against civilians including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan and Israel.

The vehicle that she stopped, and chained herself too whilst not a tank is used to make killing more efficient.  She stated that she is opposed to all arms sales, but was specifically trying to prevent illegal sales of arms.

She had tried all the usual channels of protest and writing letters etc and was particularly concerned that the government would do nothing as they had even voted for a Saudi Arabian to be chair of a panel of the Human Rights Council, despite their record.

The prosecutor was exercised with the imminence of any crime and kept pushing her about whether that particular vehicle at that particular moment seemed to be about to commit a crime.  Which it may have been as it seemed to be about to run over one of the protestors.

I was next up.  So I can tell you that it was a bit nerve racking at first, as I wanted to be clear and make sure I got my key arguments across.  The others tell me I did.  There is a good summary in the Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/12/peace-activist-thomas-franklin-uphold-rule-law-dsei-arms-fair?CMP=share_btn_tw but here is my take from what I can remember – which because of the levels of adrenalin is not as much as I might have expected.

First I explained my long commitment to human rights and arms control, having been active in Amnesty International since I was 14 and a member of CAAT on and off since my twenties; that I left the Labour Party in part because of its war mongering and have been active in the Green Party for three years including standing for Council.

I then talked about going to the protest on the Thursday, organised by Academics Against Arms and hearing one seminar before rushing off to lie in front of the tank.  The seminar then moved next to us (but that was mentioned in court). 

I pointed out that I was only trying to intervene because the police, government and arms control agencies had done nothing to uphold the law preventing the sale of amongst other things cluster bombs, land mines and torture equipment, despite the illegal activity at each previous DSEI. “In every single previous arms fair, that had been found to be happening. We have evidence of that. We have parliamentary reports, we have reports from Amnesty International, we have reports from Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, listing illegal weapons being sold.”

Cross examination focused on what other activity I had taken (such as letter writing and demonstrating) that I felt I had a right to take action, and the immediacy of any crime that the tank might be involved in.  I kept re-stating the point that if the government would only enforce the law then I would not have to intervene. 

Last up for the day was Lisa Butler who writes about Kurdistan including for Corporate Watch and Turkish attacks on Kurds were her main focus.  She had been in Kurdistan just a month before DSEI visiting Cizre, and where Kurds were being killed by Turkish forces even whilst DSEI was going on.  There had also been a recent declaration that Turkey was in breach of human rights law, but despite this they had been invited to DSEI.

She had been going to the arms fair to protest and meet a Kurdish speaker, but saw a woman who was trying to lock herself to the gate being harassed and threatened by security guards, so she decided to lock herself to the gate in her place.  Once she had locked herself to the gate a cyclist, who she did not know, took the key and headed off so that she could not unlock herself.

Since DSEI Cizre has been largely destroyed by Turkish shelling, killing hundreds and displacing thousands and thousands.

Tomorrow we start with the cross examination of Lisa.

Sorry, no pictures today.

First day of the arms protest trial

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 

---

[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.