Press Releases & Updates 2010

The 3 whose cases were dismissed had originally been charged with Willfully Obstructing a Highway. They had been lying across the road with hands superglued together at the Camels Head Gate. This gate leads to 9 Dock, where Trident submarines are refitted. On the day, one defendant decided not to come. Brian Larkin and Janet Fenton travelled down from Scotland armed with hefty written authorities and well-researched case documents, ready to represent themselves.

At this point the prosecutor finally presented a written outline of the prosecution’s skeleton argument, (which defendants had never been shown before that day) and at the same time added the alternative charge of “Obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, Contrary to 89(2) Police Act 1996”. With this, CPS produced their main reference which was the case Stephen Birch v The DPP, 1999. Defendants were given 30 minutes to read it and respond. The gist of this particular case ruling was that we could not use the argument that we were obstructing the Highway to prevent a crime. It meant that CPS could stop us using any defence relating to the illegality of Trident. When the judge came back after the half hour break, he said he had just realised that since Obstruction of a Police Officer was a summary offence, the case should have been brought to trial within 6 months and that charge was therefore dismissed. The CPS then dropped the original charge of Obstruction of the Highway saying she did not have sufficient evidence to prove it.

The Court then turned to Theo Simon and David Jesse’s case. We were charged with failing to comply with a condition imposed by a senior police officer under section 14 of the Public Order act 1986, namely to move off the road and/or behind the safety barriers CONTRARY TO SECTION 14 (5) AND (9) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT. We had been arrested after attempting to lock-on with a D-lock under a police van parked in the Dock entrance. CPS began by objecting to us calling our expert witness Professor Nick Grief, again citing the case of Birch V DPP as relevant. Theo attempted unsuccessfully to defend his need for the witness. The judge took the CPS view and also implied that all questions of Trident’s illegality were excluded from discussion. The case was about whether Inspector Bickley’s direction to protesters to move behind the barriers was a lawful condition to impose on the assembly by the terms of Section 14 POA.

Theo Simon was defending himself and David Jesse had a brief appointed by local solicitor David Teague. They worked well together, cross-examining the bronze commander Mr Bickley and the Public Order Tactical Advisor PC Nathan Johnson. It became clear that neither the inspector nor his advisor had a clear idea of what specific “serious disruption to the life of the community” was being caused by the blockade, beyond some rush-hour tailbacks. They produced no evidence whatsoever regarding traffic-flows, complaints from the public, incidents occurring, or directives from silver command. PC Johnson at one point claimed that it was “unpeaceful” for people to lie down, and THAT was the serious disorder. Inspector Bickley could not say when he had looked at the traffic congestion and assessed how serious it was as “I wasn’t paying singular attention to the traffic as my attention was on other matters at the time” and “I wasn’t really watching the traffic at that time”. The only evidence was the police video which showed traffic backing up at traffic lights. The judge was not impressed. This police video also showed Insp. Bickley’s briefing at 5 am. In the briefing he explained the traffic control measures which would operate if there were lock-ons blocking the gate. He also said that once lock-ons were removed he would impose the condition. This meant that he had already decided to use Section 14 to clear the gate at 5 am, before he had witnessed any actual serious disruption. It also meant that the traffic situation was probably under control, and Theo produced a copy of MOD advice issued the day before, which had prepared Dockyard workers in advance for delays. There was very little chance to cross-examine how the police responded to our reporting of a war-crime in 9 Dock, as the judge did not want to hear it. He did allow Theo to spell out the case against Trident in his own defence, as this was relevant to his state of mind at the time. Both David’s brief and Theo summarised their case that there was no serious disruption to the life of the community within the terms of the act, and Theo referred repeatedly to The Government Reply to the Seventh Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2009. This states among other things that “inconvenience or simple disruption are not sufficient grounds to restrict protests”.

The judge agreed in his judgement that the issuing of a condition under Section 14 had been disproportionate and it was therefore unlawful, so we were free and could claim our costs back. There was fantastic turnout of support and a van-load of cops “just in case”, (in case we became “unpeaceful”?). The Evening Herald ran a good report on the whole proceedings. The outcome of David and Theo’s case is interesting because it has helped to clarify things a bit more around Section 14 and possible defences. The whole business of how the arrests at Devonport Dockyard have been - or have not been - prosecuted gives some clues to how the police, the MOD and the Crown are operating. At the administrative level there is undoubtedly everyday inefficiency and workload pressure in the CPS which leads to mismanagement of cases, but this conceals in my opinion a conscious manoeuvring that goes on at some level to avoid the legality of Trident becoming an issue in the court. Blockaders might prepare accordingly, and we should assume that the police are also learning as they go along. Stephen Birch v The DPP, 1999.

http://tyneside.metapath.org/legalsupport/caselaw87.html

Evening Herald, Saturday June 11, 2011 http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/N-protesters-cleared-defying-police/story-12753398-detail/story.html

The Government Reply to the Seventh Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2009 http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/7633/7633.pdf

Printer friendly version

Home | Top