
Press Releases & Updates 2002
22nd April 2002
Key High Court Appellant Fined for Faslane Protest
|
A peace protester whose case was the subject of a noted High Court appeal was today found guilty of a breach of the peace for a protest at Faslane naval base in February 2000.
When faced with a breach of the peace charge for a previous blockade, peace protester Pamela Smith argued that the offence was insufficiently defined to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. When Justice of the Peace JP McPhail held that this was not demonstrated she appealed his decision. Last year the High Court refused her appeal (known as Smith v
Donnelly) but in doing so provided useful clarification of the law in regard to the offence.
They said that to establish the charge it was necessary to show that serious disturbance and alarm had taken place or was likely. On 8th October last year MSP Tommy Sheridan was acquitted on a charge of breach of the peace at the "Big Blockade" of Faslane the previous February,
on a defence which was based on the Opinion in Smith v Donnelly as well as on article 10 of the EHCR.
At today’s trial in Helensburgh District Court solicitor Ross Dow, for Pamela, argued that there was no evidence from police testimony that serious disturbance had been caused by her protest. The event had been publicised in advance and there had been liaison between the protesters and the police. Local people were inconvenienced but there was no evidence that they had been alarmed. He also said that Crown and defence witnesses had agreed that Pamela’s conduct had been peaceful and nonviolent.
Justice of the Peace Gillies, who generally gives his verdict on the spot and who has never previously explained his decisions, adjourned for ten minutes. He then told Pamela that he was finding her guilty on the basis that her behaviour had been "flagrant", a term used in the Smith v Donnelly Opinion to signal the seriousness of the conduct involved. He fined her £100, well below his usual tariff.
Pamela said: "Justice has not been done. After hearing our very strong case the JP has scraped around in the High Court Opinion to find something to justify his decision. He has latched on to "flagrant" and taken it completely out of context. I shall be appealing the verdict."
|