FAIRFORD COACH ACTION
Phone Jane Laporte on 07817 483 167 or Jesse Schust on 0781 458 7361
or e-mail  press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk

PRESS RELEASE: 07 December 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

'COACH-NAPPED' PROTESTORS AWAIT APPEAL RULING

120 "Coach-napped" anti-war protestors will hear tomorrow (8 December) if their case has been successful at the Court of Appeal. The judgement will be handed down at a judgement hearing in Court 4 of the Royal Courts of Justice at 10am. The ruling hearing will be presided over by Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf, and Lord Justice Clarke (but not Lord Justice Rix). The claimant and other passengers will be available for comment and interview immediately following the ruling.

In their appeal, the coach passengers argued that the police acted unlawfully in turning them away from a demonstration at RAF Fairford during the height of the initial bombing campaign against Iraq in March 2003. The passengers and their coaches were stopped and searched for nearly two hours, before being forced back to London under a heavy police escort "to prevent a breach of the peace." No offensive items were found.

The coach passengers won a landmark victory in February at the High Court, which ruled that the police had acted unlawfully and breached their human rights by detaining them. The police had argued that the protestors were "well-armed". However, giving judgement, Lord Justice May commented that, "for practical purposes none of the articles seized were to be regarded as offensive. Two pairs of scissors would not make much impression on the perimeter fencing of the air base."

Gloucestershire police argued that they were protecting the coach passengers' right to life by detaining them and forcing their return to London. It appears that in March 2003, US soldiers at Fairford had declared an intent to shoot people entering the base without permission. Helen Wickham, a coach passenger, said: "Clearly the items we had with us would not have enabled us to get into the base. I think it is deeply worrying that Gloucestershire police, confronted with the possibility of US troops shooting protestors who breached the base, chose to defend the US use of lethal force rather than uphold our right to protest."

Although the judges ruled in February that detention on the coaches was unlawful, they also ruled that it was not unlawful for the police to turn the passengers away from the demonstration. A group of about 80 of the coach passengers, supported by Liberty and Amnesty International, took their case to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the police's actions - and the court's ruling - denied them the right to protest. Jane Laporte, the official claimant in the case, said: "we were on our way to a lawful protest against an illegal war. A war that is still going on now. It is vitally important that the court of appeal upholds our right to protest, and by extension the right of everybody in this country. I believe this is particularly important in a time of war". Amnesty International has described the February ruling as having a "chilling effect on the rights to freedom of assembly, peaceful protest and expression."

An important question in this case is the extent to which English courts are prepared to uphold the European Human Rights Act (HRA), which has been in force in this country since October 2000. It is possible that the Appeal Court will rule on the facts of this particular case, but avoid making wider points about human rights and the right to protest.

Jesse Schust, one of the coach passengers, said: "the previous ruling was an important victory for us, but it didn't go far enough. I hope that the Court of Appeal has the courage to rule in our favour on both counts and uphold the right to protest in this country".

The detained coach passengers are prepared to take their case to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights if the Court of Appeal fails to uphold their human rights.


For more information on Fairford Coach Action, phone Jane Laporte on 07817 483 167 or Jesse Schust on 07814 587 361 or e-mail  press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk

(A formatted version of this press release is available at the website)

----------------------------------------------------------
Notes for Journalists

1. Fairford Coach Action is the name of the group of more than 80 passengers who have collectively decided to pursue a Judicial Review case against the police's actions on 22nd March 2003. Full background information is available on the website. Visit the site for links to the full judgement, related web articles, statements of support, and testimonial statements from coach passengers.  http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/

2. Interviews with passengers from the coaches can be arranged (please enquire - see contact details above). Dramatic, high-quality, digital video footage and photographs are also available. To use this footage on TV or in film, contact Catherine Bonnici of Journeyman Films ( catherine@journeyman.co.uk Tel: 020 8941 9994 Fax: 020 8941 9899).

3. Professional photos of the coach detention are available. There was a professional photographer present who photographed the coaches and what happened on the day of the coach kidnapping. Guy Smallman was one of several accredited journalists who were on the coaches. He has a selection of pictures from the day (one of which appeared in The Guardian after the initial High Court ruling). Contact Guy Smallman 07956 429 059 with enquiries. (These photos are in a suitable format to be wired directly to the picture desk).

4. The solicitor representing the case, John Halford, can be contacted at Bindman & Partners on 020 7833 4433.

5. The Fairford coach case is listed in Amnesty International's report: Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Region, January - June 2004, and was mentioned in Liberty's dossier on the policing at RAF Fairford. Liberty made a submission to the Court of Appeal supporting the passengers' appeal. Other supporters include Ken Livingstone, David Drew, MP (Stroud), Lynne Jones, MP, Caroline Lucas, MEP, Jean Lambert, MEP, and Mark Thomas (see website for quotes).

6. On 22nd March 2003, three days after the start of the US/UK war on Iraq, a demonstration organised by the Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors (GWI), attracted over 3,000 protestors to the airbase. Groups travelled to Fairford from 37 locations across the UK. American B-52 planes flew from RAF Fairford airbase to bomb Baghdad (see  http://www.fairfordpeacewatch.com/ ) and Fairford was the site of excessive policing during the war on Iraq. (Within 52 days (from 6 March 2003), police conducted over 2000 anti-terror searches in the vicinity.) GWI, Berkshire CIA and Liberty issued a dossier showing how stop and search powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 were misused by police. For the report "Casualty of War - 8 weeks of counter-terrorism in rural England" see  http://www.gwi.org.uk/ and  http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ The Government estimated the added cost of policing RAF Fairford was £6.9 million. The airbase continues to be upgraded for use by US Stealth (B2) Bombers, greatly expanding the US capacity to "invisibly" deploy tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the world within hours. Further info at  http://www.gwi.org.uk/ and  http://www.atkinsglobal.com/skills/design/sectors/aviationdefence/jfsiraffairford/

7. The main defendant in the case is The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary; the two interested parties are the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police and the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police.

8. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000. It requires the police and other public authorities to avoid breaching key European Convention Human Rights Articles save where legislation makes this impossible. Amongst the key rights are Article 5 (deprivation of liberty must be justified in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and on one of the five grounds listed in paragraph (1) of the Article), Article 10 (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).

9. At common law a constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he or she reasonably believes will commit a breach of the peace in the immediate future, even though at the time of the arrest such person has not committed any breach. This power is subject to a number of strict restrictions, however: the belief must relate to an act or threatened act harming any person or, in his presence, his property, or which puts a person in fear of such harm; the belief must relate to the likely actions of the particular individual or individuals against whom the power is used; and when the particular individual is acting lawfully at the time the power is used, the threat of his committing a breach of the peace must be sufficiently real and imminent to justify the use of such a draconian power.