{"id":941,"date":"2004-12-08T20:03:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-08T20:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tashuk.wordpress.com\/2004\/12\/08\/941\/"},"modified":"2004-12-08T20:03:00","modified_gmt":"2004-12-08T20:03:00","slug":"941","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/archives\/941","title":{"rendered":"Human Rights Act Victory for Fairford Coach Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

http:\/\/www.indymedia.org.uk\/en\/2004\/12\/302517.html<\/a><\/p>\n

COACH-NAPPED PROTESTORS \u201cVIRTUALLY PRISONERS\u201d RULES COURT OF APPEAL<\/p>\n

Anti-war protestors are today celebrating a Court of Appeal ruling which<\/p>\n

held that the police acted unlawfully in detaining them for 2\u00bd hours without<\/p>\n

arrests.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal ruled today that police violated the Human Rights Act<\/p>\n

when they illegally detained 120 protestors en route to a demonstration at<\/p>\n

RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire. Giving judgment, Lord Chief Justice Lord<\/p>\n

Woolf stated that, ‘the passengers were virtually prisoners on the coaches<\/p>\n

for the length of the journey\u2026[W]e are not persuaded that there were no less<\/p>\n

intrusive possible alternative courses of action here.’<\/p>\n

At the Appeal hearing in October, Gloucestershire police argued that they<\/p>\n

were in fact protecting the protestors’ right to life by detaining them and<\/p>\n

forcing their return to London. In his witness statement, Chief<\/p>\n

Superintendent Kevin Lambert, the officer in charge of policing the protest,<\/p>\n

stated that, ‘had a member of the public penetrated the defences and been<\/p>\n

killed or injured by one of the armed personnel guarding the B52<\/p>\n

aircraft\u2026the public reaction and political consequences would have been<\/p>\n

extremely damaging to the coalition partners’. Helen Wickham, a coach<\/p>\n

passenger, said: \u201cI think it is deeply worrying that Gloucestershire police,<\/p>\n

confronted with the possibility of US troops shooting unarmed protestors,<\/p>\n

chose to defend the US use of lethal force and pursue a political agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n

This ruling, which reaffirms a High Court ruling in February, will impact on<\/p>\n

the policing of future demonstrations and will have implications for the May<\/p>\n

Day 2001\/Oxford Circus cases against the Metropolitan Police early next<\/p>\n

year.<\/p>\n

The ruling was welcomed as a confirmation of the limits of a draconian power<\/p>\n

which Parliament has never debated or sanctioned. However the protestors<\/p>\n

feel that the judgment should have gone further and ruled that the police<\/p>\n

also denied them two other human rights: freedom of assembly and freedom of<\/p>\n

expression. Jane Laporte, the named claimant, said: \u201cthe right to protest is<\/p>\n

something we celebrate when we see it exercised abroad, but this fundamental<\/p>\n

democratic freedom has been relegated to a privilege that can be taken away<\/p>\n

on the whim of a police officer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Last March, the protestors and their coaches were searched for nearly two<\/p>\n

hours and forced back to London under a heavy police escort \u201cto prevent a<\/p>\n

breach of the peace.\u201d The police argued that this was justified because the<\/p>\n

protestors were, in their view, \u201cwell-armed\u201d.<\/p>\n

However, in the original High Court ruling in February, Lord Justice May<\/p>\n

commented that, \u201cfor practical purposes none of the articles seized were to<\/p>\n

be regarded as offensive. Two pairs of scissors would not make much<\/p>\n

impression on the perimeter fencing of the air base.\u201d<\/p>\n

John Halford, the solicitor at Bindman and Partners representing the group,<\/p>\n

said today that, \u201cthe police action in detaining these protestors was and<\/p>\n

remains a grotesque abuse of power. What was at stake here today was<\/p>\n

nothing less than the right to protest in the UK. That this right can be<\/p>\n

taken away when no crime had been committed and on the flimsiest of pretexts<\/p>\n

lays the foundation of a police state.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jesse Schust, one of the coach passengers, said: \u201cIt is particularly ironic<\/p>\n

that the police violated our human rights by detaining us, when we sought to<\/p>\n

demonstrate against an illegal war that has devastated Iraq and left over<\/p>\n

100,000 dead.\u201d<\/p>\n

The detained coach passengers are prepared to take their case to the House<\/p>\n

of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n

For more information on Fairford Coach Action, phone Jane Laporte on 07817<\/p>\n

483 167 or Jesse Schust on 07814 587 361 or e-mail<\/p>\n

press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk<\/p>\n

www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk<\/p>\n

(A formatted version of this press release is available at the website)<\/p>\n

———————————————————-<\/p>\n

Notes for Journalists<\/p>\n

1. Fairford Coach Action is the name of the group of more than 80 passengers<\/p>\n

who have collectively decided to pursue a Judicial Review case against the<\/p>\n

police’s actions on 22nd March 2003. Full background information is<\/p>\n

available on the website. Visit the site for links to the full judgement,<\/p>\n

related web articles, statements of support, and testimonial statements from<\/p>\n

coach passengers. http:\/\/www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk\/<\/p>\n

2. Interviews with passengers from the coaches can be arranged (please<\/p>\n

enquire – see contact details above). Dramatic, high-quality, digital video<\/p>\n

footage and photographs are also available. To use this footage on TV or in<\/p>\n

film, contact Catherine Bonnici of Journeyman Films<\/p>\n

( catherine@journeyman.co.uk Tel: 020 8941 9994 Fax: 020 8941 9899).<\/p>\n

3. Professional photos of the coach detention are available. Guy Smallman<\/p>\n

was one of several accredited journalists who were on the coaches. He has a<\/p>\n

selection of pictures from the day. Contact Guy Smallman 07956 429 059 with<\/p>\n

enquiries. (These photos are in a suitable format to be wired directly to<\/p>\n

the picture desk).<\/p>\n

4. The solicitor representing the case, John Halford, can be contacted at<\/p>\n

Bindman & Partners on 020 7833 4433.<\/p>\n

5. The Fairford coach case is listed in Amnesty International’s report:<\/p>\n

Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the<\/p>\n

Region, January \u2013 June 2004, and was mentioned in Liberty’s dossier on the<\/p>\n

policing at RAF Fairford. Liberty made a submission to the Court of Appeal<\/p>\n

supporting the passengers’ appeal. Other supporters include Ken<\/p>\n

Livingstone, David Drew, MP (Stroud), Lynne Jones, MP, Caroline Lucas, MEP,<\/p>\n

Jean Lambert, MEP, and Mark Thomas (see website for quotes).<\/p>\n

6. On 22nd March 2003, three days after the start of the US\/UK war on Iraq,<\/p>\n

a demonstration organised by the Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors (GWI),<\/p>\n

attracted over 3,000 protestors to the airbase. Groups travelled to<\/p>\n

Fairford from 37 locations across the UK. American B-52 planes flew from<\/p>\n

RAF Fairford airbase to bomb Baghdad (see http:\/\/www.fairfordpeacewatch.com\/<\/p>\n

) and Fairford was the site of excessive policing during the war on Iraq.<\/p>\n

(Within 52 days (from 6 March 2003), police conducted over 2000 anti-terror<\/p>\n

searches in the vicinity.) GWI, Berkshire CIA and Liberty issued a dossier<\/p>\n

showing how stop and search powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 were misused by<\/p>\n

police. For the report “Casualty of War – 8 weeks of counter-terrorism in<\/p>\n

rural England” see http:\/\/www.gwi.org.uk\/ and<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk\/ The Government estimated the added<\/p>\n

cost of policing RAF Fairford was \u00a36.9 million. The airbase continues to be<\/p>\n

upgraded for use by US Stealth (B2) Bombers, greatly expanding the US<\/p>\n

capacity to “invisibly” deploy tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the<\/p>\n

world within hours. Further info at http:\/\/www.gwi.org.uk\/ and<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.atkinsglobal.com\/skills\/design\/sectors\/aviationdefence\/jfsiraffai<\/p>\n

rford\/<\/p>\n

7. The main defendant in the case is The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire<\/p>\n

Constabulary; the two interested parties are the Commissioner for the<\/p>\n

Metropolitan Police and the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police.<\/p>\n

8. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000. It requires<\/p>\n

the police and other public authorities to avoid breaching key European<\/p>\n

Convention Human Rights Articles save where legislation makes this<\/p>\n

impossible. Amongst the key rights are Article 5 (deprivation of liberty<\/p>\n

must be justified in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and on<\/p>\n

one of the five grounds listed in paragraph (1) of the Article), Article 10<\/p>\n

(freedom of speech and expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).<\/p>\n

9. At common law a constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he or<\/p>\n

she reasonably believes will commit a breach of the peace in the immediate<\/p>\n

future, even though at the time of the arrest such person has not committed<\/p>\n

any breach. This power is subject to a number of strict restrictions,<\/p>\n

however: the belief must relate to an act or threatened act harming any<\/p>\n

person or, in his presence, his property, or which puts a person in fear of<\/p>\n

such harm; the belief must relate to the likely actions of the particular<\/p>\n

individual or individuals against whom the power is used; and when the<\/p>\n

particular individual is acting lawfully at the time the power is used, the<\/p>\n

threat of his committing a breach of the peace must be sufficiently real and<\/p>\n

imminent to justify the use of such a draconian power.<\/p>\n

From the Press Team at the Fairford Coach Action<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

http:\/\/www.indymedia.org.uk\/en\/2004\/12\/302517.html COACH-NAPPED PROTESTORS \u201cVIRTUALLY PRISONERS\u201d RULES COURT OF APPEAL Anti-war protestors are today celebrating a Court of Appeal ruling which held that the police acted unlawfully in detaining them for 2\u00bd hours without arrests. The Court of Appeal ruled today … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}