Press Releases & Updates 2004

A panel of five judges, rather than the usual three, will hear the appeals, giving additional authority to their judgment. The aim is to clarify what actually constitutes a breach of the peace, which has been a controversial and problematic part of the criminal law.

The issue is especially relevant to the future of peaceful protest in Scotland, not only to the struggle against Trident but to other campaigns for justice, peace and the environment.

In January 2000 protester Pamela Smith, faced with a charge of breaching the peace at a blockade of Faslane, argued in Helensburgh District Court that the offence was insufficiently defined to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. When her submission was repelled by the court she appealed to the High Court. Her appeal was rejected but in their opinion on the case the judges did offer clarification on the offence, particularly in stating that: "What is required, therefore, it seems to us, is conduct which does present as genuinely alarming and disturbing, in its context, to any reasonable person." (1.)

In spite of this, Justices at Helensburgh District Court have continued, with few exceptions, to convict protesters of a breach of the peace for sitting peacefully on the road at the entrance to the Trident base, in the face of a lack of evidence of any alarm or disturbance. This has led to an estimated twenty appeals to the High Court.

The three Trident-related appeals to be heard on 2rd and 3rd March are: Jane Tallents (45), from Helensburgh, against a conviction for protesting against Trident in the Scottish Parliament in April 2001; Margaret Jones (55), from Bristol, against a conviction for a blockade at Faslane in February 2002; Gaynor Barrett (25) from Exeter, against a conviction for a blockade of the warhead depot at Coulport in 1999.

Jane Tallents said: “We hope that the High Court will uphold our right to freely express our utter abhorrence of a weapon system made for mass killing.”

Note 1. Smith v Donnelly Scots Law Times: No 27: 31-8-2001 paragraph 17.

Printer friendly version

Home | Top