ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENES TO SAVE UK ARMS COMPANY FROM WAR CRIMES ACCUSATION
Smash EDO | 05.11.2005 15:49 | Anti-militarism | London | South Coast
SMASH EDO
PRESS RELEASE
http://www.smashedo.org.uk
---------------------------------------------
DATE: Thursday October 2005.
EMBARGO. For Immediate Release
CONTACT: Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson on
Phone: 07875 708873
Email:
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------
ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENES TO SAVE UK ARMS COMPANY FROM WAR CRIMES ACCUSATION.
Yesterday the Attorney general intervened in an injunction trial at the High Court to limit UK arms companies culpability for war crimes. The Attorney General's office applied to address proceedings during a three day hearing into an injunction taken out against protesters by EDO MBM a Brighton based weapons manufacturer.
The injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 seeks to limit the right to protest outside the claimant's factory in Brighton. The defendants, a collection of peace protestors say that as their actions were intended to prevent breaches of international law and war crimes the injunction cannot apply.
Mr Perry, barrister for the Attorney General told the court that irrespective of the number of civilian casualties due to air strikes in Iraq the crucial issue was whether or not the attacks on civilians had been 'systematic'. He suggested that any civilian casualties were as a result of obtaining direct military objectives. The court was not told what those objectives were. Any civilian casualties were therefore 'regrettable' and 'tragic' but not war crimes. The claimant's actions in supplying the UK and US militaries with bomb release systems and guidance mechanisms could not be considered as arming an 'illegal' war because 'aggression' is not a crime under domestic law.
The Court was shown graphic evidence of the aftermath of air-strikes, in the shape of photographs and eyewitness statements.
Judge Wallace has said that he will deliver his judgement at 2pm on Friday 4th November at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Andrew Beckett, press spokesman for SMASH EDO said "We find it telling that the Attorney General's office was so swift to intervene in this case as soon as it touched on the subject of the legality of the war - rather than offer an independent perspective we suspect this intervention to be about providing a smokescreen for an illegal war which resulted in 100,000 casualties, mostly from air-strikes"
==========================================
Notes for Journalists
Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.
The injunction referred to was served under the 1997
Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to
protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its
kind directed at activists outside of the animal
rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction
but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone
deemed to be a protestor.
Initially EDO/MBM requested a large "exclusion zone"
comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.
They and Sussex police also wanted to limit
demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than
ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused
to impose these conditions at the initial hearing of
an interim injunction, which was put in place in the
period before the full trial to be heard at the High
court in London from November 21st.
In his summing up he said, "The right to freedom of
_expression is jealously guarded in English law" and
consequently refused to impose the requested limits on
size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.
He also said that he doubted that protesters were
'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.
EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of
huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was
recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100
fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release
mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst
others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon's
Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the
"Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq.
EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia over being named as "warmongers".
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental
in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997
from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a
corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They
have pioneered to use of injunctions to create large
"exclusion zones". They have secured numerous
injunctions against anti-vivisection and anti-GM
protestors.
Campaign against EDO MBM.
People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade unionists, academics and students. The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp. It's avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their complicity in war crimes and to remove them from Brighton.
PRESS RELEASE
http://www.smashedo.org.uk ---------------------------------------------
DATE: Thursday October 2005.
EMBARGO. For Immediate Release
CONTACT: Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson on
Phone: 07875 708873
Email:
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk -------------------------------------------------
ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENES TO SAVE UK ARMS COMPANY FROM WAR CRIMES ACCUSATION.
Yesterday the Attorney general intervened in an injunction trial at the High Court to limit UK arms companies culpability for war crimes. The Attorney General's office applied to address proceedings during a three day hearing into an injunction taken out against protesters by EDO MBM a Brighton based weapons manufacturer.
The injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 seeks to limit the right to protest outside the claimant's factory in Brighton. The defendants, a collection of peace protestors say that as their actions were intended to prevent breaches of international law and war crimes the injunction cannot apply.
Mr Perry, barrister for the Attorney General told the court that irrespective of the number of civilian casualties due to air strikes in Iraq the crucial issue was whether or not the attacks on civilians had been 'systematic'. He suggested that any civilian casualties were as a result of obtaining direct military objectives. The court was not told what those objectives were. Any civilian casualties were therefore 'regrettable' and 'tragic' but not war crimes. The claimant's actions in supplying the UK and US militaries with bomb release systems and guidance mechanisms could not be considered as arming an 'illegal' war because 'aggression' is not a crime under domestic law.
The Court was shown graphic evidence of the aftermath of air-strikes, in the shape of photographs and eyewitness statements.
Judge Wallace has said that he will deliver his judgement at 2pm on Friday 4th November at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Andrew Beckett, press spokesman for SMASH EDO said "We find it telling that the Attorney General's office was so swift to intervene in this case as soon as it touched on the subject of the legality of the war - rather than offer an independent perspective we suspect this intervention to be about providing a smokescreen for an illegal war which resulted in 100,000 casualties, mostly from air-strikes"
==========================================
Notes for Journalists
Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.
The injunction referred to was served under the 1997
Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to
protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its
kind directed at activists outside of the animal
rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction
but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone
deemed to be a protestor.
Initially EDO/MBM requested a large "exclusion zone"
comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.
They and Sussex police also wanted to limit
demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than
ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused
to impose these conditions at the initial hearing of
an interim injunction, which was put in place in the
period before the full trial to be heard at the High
court in London from November 21st.
In his summing up he said, "The right to freedom of
_expression is jealously guarded in English law" and
consequently refused to impose the requested limits on
size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.
He also said that he doubted that protesters were
'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.
EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of
huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was
recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100
fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release
mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst
others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon's
Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the
"Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq.
EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia over being named as "warmongers".
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental
in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997
from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a
corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They
have pioneered to use of injunctions to create large
"exclusion zones". They have secured numerous
injunctions against anti-vivisection and anti-GM
protestors.
Campaign against EDO MBM.
People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade unionists, academics and students. The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp. It's avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their complicity in war crimes and to remove them from Brighton.
Smash EDO