Press Releases & Updates 2002

When the case came up today in Edinburgh the Advocate Depute asked for it to be adjourned so that it could be considered along with a number of other breach of the peace appeals before a panel of five judges in order to further clarify the law in regard to the offence, a move initiated by the Lord Justice General. Tommy argued that it should go ahead since a year had already gone by and there were plenty other breach of the peace appeals that would serve the purpose of a review. Today’s bench, Lord Cameron (presiding), with Lord Hamilton and Lord McEwan, agreed.

The Advocate Depute made a second attempt to secure an adjournment, claiming that it would take the Crown at least an hour to present its case and that this would hold the MSP back from the urgent business he had in the afternoon. Tommy again said that he wished the case to go ahead and again their Lordships agreed. When the case proper began it became clear that the Crown did not have a substantial case to make and the Advocate Depute conceded that JP Stirling had applied the law as it stood, particularly in reference to the clarification of breach of the peace in the Smith v Donnelly appeal. At this stage Lord Cameron pointed out that an appeal by the Crown could not be argued when the law had been applied at the original trial. The entire Crown case had taken less than ten minutes.

Tommy told the court he was perplexed by the Crown’s approach. He had expected the Advocate depute to present substantial arguments. On the contrary the JP’s very clear Stated Case had not been challenged. The evidence at the trial, from the Crown witnesses, had established that no one had been alarmed, or was likely to have been, at the blockade of Faslane. It had been an entirely peaceful and reasonable protest on an issue which affected the whole world and Scotland in particular it was all wrong that over 1000 people had been criminalised by being arrested at Faslane in the last two years.

Trident Ploughshares comment: "This puts the cat among the pigeons. In terms of the facts Tommy’s case is practically identical with hundreds of others. There is first of all the question of the wrong done to so many people who have been convicted on the basis of similar facts, even when the Smith v Donnelly Opinion was known to the courts. Then there are still over 80 trials pending from Faslane blockades. If the Crown witnesses do not perjure themselves there will be no evidence of alarm or serious disturbance and acquittals in every case is the only logical outcome. More intriguing still are the implications for the police. How can they rationally conduct mass arrests in the future at Faslane now that the appeal court has "cawed the feet" from them?"

Printer friendly version

Home | Top