One of the two comrades was charged with affixing placards to council property and both comrades were charged with depositing a paste table on the highway ‘without lawful authority or excuse.’ The solicitor for the defence, David Lees, was told upon entering court that one of the magistrates was a shareholder in Marks and Spencer’s and the chief magistrate was Jewish. We objected to the M&S shareholder being present, which resulted in their removal form court, but had no problem with the Jewish magistrate, for obvious reasons. The case opened with both solicitors giving definitions of ‘affixed’, which isn’t defined in the highways act. Andrew Butcher, licensing officer, was giving evidence for the prosecution and testified that the placards were ‘draped’. Lees stated that, for the defendants to be found guilty of depositing a table on the highway, the magistrates would have to find that the table was an interruption and an unreasonable one. When one of the defendants was giving evidence, he described the reasons for the M&S picket and stated that it was in solidarity with Palestine and that the people on the picket were asking people to boycott Israeli goods and to isolate the Zionist State. The chief magistrate was shaking his head throughout this and showed his sympathy towards the Zionist cause. The prosecution picked up on this and asked some of the same questions agin when the other comrade was giving evidence, this was obviously to gain more sympathy from the magistrate. Butcher was asked if any member of the public had ever complained about being ‘interrupted’ by the paste table, he testified that they hadn’t. Lees then asked Butcher if M&S had ever complained to the council about the table. Butcher said that M&S had complained, and, when Lees asked if M&S complaint had been passed onto him, the prosecution objected and the chief magistrate ruled that the question was not relevant and Butcher did not have to answer. Lees then explained that he was trying to figure out exactly whom the table was an interruption to. The question was still ruled irrelevant. The prosecution argued that a table was not needed for an effective picket because we could carry all of our leaflets on us. It was also suggested that we all wear placards instead of ‘affixing them to council property’. The prosecution, from the suggestions of Andrew Butcher, even went as far as to say that the placards were stopping people from being able to lean on the wall! The verdict came back as guilty for both comrades for depositing a table on the highway. The reason for this was because they saw it as unreasonable use because we could carry our literature and did not need a table. The verdict came back as guilty for affixing the placards based on a definition of affixed with the use of words such as ‘saddle’. These reasons are clearly unfounded and were thought up to excuse the fact that the guilty verdict is an attack on the right to protest, particularly on the streets of Manchester. This case also brings to light, the ignorance and racism in our ‘justice’ system and the constant support it gives to the racist, Zionist state of Israel.

SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO PROTEST!
JOIN THE WEEKLY PICKETS OF M&S!
VICTORY TO THE INTIFADA!

***The picket is every Saturday 12-3 on Market Street, Manchester***