Fairford - A Hollow Victory?
Bristol ABC | 19.02.2004 12:20
...the court did back the police's contention that they were entitled - and obliged - to take preventative action as they "reasonably and honestly" believed that breaches of the peace would have occurred if the coaches reached Fairford.
Protesters have won their High Court battle over a police decision to detain them on their way to RAF Fairford for an anti-war demonstration.
Lawyers for half the 120 passengers, stopped from protesting last March, accused Gloucestershire Police of acting unlawfully.
Three coaches were stopped, searched and escorted back to London.
The court ruled that police() abused common law when they detained the demonstrators for more than two hours.
We think what the police are required to do in a situation like this is assess every individual separately
Solicitor John Halford
Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison, sitting in London, ruled that the protesters' detention and forced return could also not be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the court did back the police's contention that they were entitled - and obliged - to take preventative action as they "reasonably and honestly" believed that breaches of the peace would have occurred if the coaches reached Fairford.
In its judgement, the court also said that there "...may be circumstances in which individual discrimination amongst a large numbers of uncooperative people may be impractical" and that this was such a case.
John Halford, solicitor for the protesters, told BBC News 24: "The court made it clear that we won on main issues and awarded all of our costs against the police.
"The main issue was unlawful detention and whether it was right to escort 120 protesters back to London and forcibly keeping them on the coach when they did so.
"We think what the police are required to do in a situation like this is assess every individual separately."
There is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement
Gloucestershire Police
Items removed by police from the coaches included masks, white overalls, scissors, five shields and body armour.
The protesters were on their way to join a demonstration against the war in Iraq() when they were detained for more than two hours.
They were then escorted back to London without stopping in a two and a half hour journey with no toilet facilities on the buses.
The circumstance and length of this detention were ruled by the court to be "wholly disproportionate".
A statement by Gloucestershire Police read: "The court has made it clear that the operational commander on the ground was lawfully entitled to turn those coaches away. In fact, it was his duty to do so.
"While the court has decided that it was wrong for the police to escort those coaches back, they made it clear that there was no basis whatsoever for doubting the Operational Commander's intentions or motives in doing so. He was acting in entirely good faith.
"In fact, there is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement."
"The fact that no one was hurt that day and that a lawful protest was able to take place with the cooperation of the local community and without disruption to military operations demonstrates that this operation was entirely successful."
Mr Halford said protesters planned to appeal the court's ruling that two articles of Human rights Law had not been breached.
Both the police and protesters have been given leave to appeal.
Lawyers for half the 120 passengers, stopped from protesting last March, accused Gloucestershire Police of acting unlawfully.
Three coaches were stopped, searched and escorted back to London.
The court ruled that police() abused common law when they detained the demonstrators for more than two hours.
We think what the police are required to do in a situation like this is assess every individual separately
Solicitor John Halford
Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison, sitting in London, ruled that the protesters' detention and forced return could also not be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the court did back the police's contention that they were entitled - and obliged - to take preventative action as they "reasonably and honestly" believed that breaches of the peace would have occurred if the coaches reached Fairford.
In its judgement, the court also said that there "...may be circumstances in which individual discrimination amongst a large numbers of uncooperative people may be impractical" and that this was such a case.
John Halford, solicitor for the protesters, told BBC News 24: "The court made it clear that we won on main issues and awarded all of our costs against the police.
"The main issue was unlawful detention and whether it was right to escort 120 protesters back to London and forcibly keeping them on the coach when they did so.
"We think what the police are required to do in a situation like this is assess every individual separately."
There is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement
Gloucestershire Police
Items removed by police from the coaches included masks, white overalls, scissors, five shields and body armour.
The protesters were on their way to join a demonstration against the war in Iraq() when they were detained for more than two hours.
They were then escorted back to London without stopping in a two and a half hour journey with no toilet facilities on the buses.
The circumstance and length of this detention were ruled by the court to be "wholly disproportionate".
A statement by Gloucestershire Police read: "The court has made it clear that the operational commander on the ground was lawfully entitled to turn those coaches away. In fact, it was his duty to do so.
"While the court has decided that it was wrong for the police to escort those coaches back, they made it clear that there was no basis whatsoever for doubting the Operational Commander's intentions or motives in doing so. He was acting in entirely good faith.
"In fact, there is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement."
"The fact that no one was hurt that day and that a lawful protest was able to take place with the cooperation of the local community and without disruption to military operations demonstrates that this operation was entirely successful."
Mr Halford said protesters planned to appeal the court's ruling that two articles of Human rights Law had not been breached.
Both the police and protesters have been given leave to appeal.
Bristol ABC
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Interesting
19.02.2004 17:50
What worries me, & what was a little troublesome at the court hearing, was the subtle distinction, made by both barristers, between 'good' & 'bad' protestors. The implication being that if the 'bad' protestors had been identified, seperated & sent back to the london the 'good' protestors would've been allowed on to fairford. And no outrage would have occurred.
Naturally i am pleased & encouraged by some aspects of the verdict, although i still hold that it would have been preferable for all protestors everywhere, both now & at future demonstrations, if those involved had taken a look at the bigger picture & opted for suing the police instead of going for the judicial review.
Not so much a hollow victory as a personal vindication of the individual's right to protest. Collectively, both politically & literally, we still have a long long way to go.
May those who have earned their personal victory think on.
dt
sue the police ?
19.02.2004 18:32
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. As far as I know, You cannot 'sue the police'. You can either sue the individual police officers that detained you, or, if it's the whole procedure you're against, do a judicial review. The point of doing a judicial review is that this is now as good as law - the police will never be allowed to detain people again.
rezt
result is good for mayday case
19.02.2004 19:56
the point is the police have been told they cannot detain people in these cases - this IS a victory.
if you sue them you may get some money years down the line, but that's all.
there is still hope for the appeal as well.
then the police can be sued.
-
You can sue the police
20.02.2004 19:09
It would also be possible to sue an individual copper, but more difficult, and any damages or costs awarded would generally be paid by the police force anyway.
If you want to sue someone, you are generally expected you to write to tell them about your plans to sue before troubling the court. This gives them a chance to offer a settlement, which prevents the issue ever comming before the court. If you refuse an offer to setle, and the court doesn't make a much higher award, you might have to pay the cops costs, even though you've won.
It is not possible for the cops to settle a judicial review, which in this sort of case is mainly an application for the court to declare the cops' actions unlawfull.
Barney