Arms company EDO MBM of Brighton, who are the subject of a campaign by anti-arms-trade campaigners, have retained the services of notorious lawyer Timothy Lawson Cruttenden to take out an injunction under the Protection of Harassment Act 1998. These injunctions are considered controversial due to their criminialisation of protest. In the last 3 years over twenty of these have been taken out, with none having yet come to trial due to various procrastinations, despite numerous comments of disquiet from various high court judges on the matter.

It was hoped that the Smash EDO case would be the first to come to trial, and it is seen by many activists as being very significant for the increasingly embattled right to protest in the UK. The judges who have heard the case to date have put on a vigorous timetable, and despite at one stage representatives from the Attorney-General's office being invited to contribute, the case was due to be heard this week.

However, at the last minute Mr Lawson Cruttenden changed the 'Particulars of Claim' which laid out the nature of the case. This resulted in further delay, compounded by numerous allegations of disquiet over how the case was being managed by Mr Lawson Cruttenden from the defendants.

Detailed documents were placed before the court which apparently outlined how Mr Lawson Cruttenden attempted to go behind previous judge's rulings to obtain material which he had been told he could not have. He attempted to get around this by putting the material directly into the 'particulars of claim'. On a similar note there was strong questions over just how he obtained some of the knowledge in the first place, with suspicions of the police acting beyond their duty, by disclosing material for use in a civil litigation, in collusion with EDO and Mr Lawson Cruttenden

Other accusations were over the conduct of Mr Lawson Cruttenden himself in abusing the court process to delay trial. The court examined a variety of correspondence between the parties the gravity of which the judge himself acknowledged. Included in this was the use Mr Lawson Cruttenden made of his paralegal Melanie Loram to create witness statements in his defense, rather than dealing with the serious matters himself. The fact that this weeks trial date had to be abandoned due to Mr Lawson Cruttenden's amendments weighed heavily on the court, and then there was considerable disquiet over the amendments themselves.

On the matter of disclosure of evidence there was further challenges during the hearing, with the managing director of EDO MBM, Mr David A Jones, having to give an affidavit under sworn oath that all material being ordered disclosed was actually being done so.

As the case progressed it was clear that the charges being leveled by the defendants carried considerable merit and Justice Walker grew increasingly concerned. It placed Mr Lawson Crutttenden in an invidious position where he himself was on trial.

The result of the hearing was an adjournment until February. Justice Walker ordered Mr Lawson Cruttenden to appoint junior counsel (ie, a barrister experienced in dealing with the high court) to look over the case, help him prepare documents and represent him in subsequent hearings. The judge acknowledged the gravity of the charges being leveled against Mr Lawson Cruttenden in doing so. Mr Lawson Cruttenden's career in this field is now clearly on the line if the allegations from the defendants are upheld.

If the charges are upheld there is a strong indication that the interim injunction currently in place against protesters will be lifted until the actual trial date, which would be a first in proceedings of this type. It would seriously damage Mr Lawson Cruttenden's career; and as he is the main proponent of these types of injunctions, their subsequent use to stifle protest would also be damaged critically.

Mr Lawson Cruttenden was among one of the first solicitors to qualify as solicitor-advocates and is one of the founders of the association representing them. The creation of this half-way status between ordinary solicitor and barrister was a controversial move in legal circles at the time, and could be further damaged by these events.

If that was not enough trouble for him, he is also currently under investigation by the Law Society for inappropriate comments he made to the media earlier in the year on animal rights injunction cases where he is also involved.

The defendants are a number of campaigners represented by their barrister Ms Stephanie Harrison or in person. The campaigners are being alleged to have carried out harassment against the employees at EDO's factory at Home Farm Road in Brighton, through roof top demos (for which a number were found not guilty of aggravated trespass), road blockades, which has apparently been compounded by some of them continuing to attend peaceful, lawful protests at the site.

Earlier in the year the defendants had attempted to challenge the basis of the war in Iraq through the courts, but were denied the right with Judge Walker following submissions from the office of the Attorney-General on the matter. However, the defendants continue to allege that EDO is involved in manufacturing military equipment which is being used against civilians in both Iraq and Palestine.

For more information about the campaign and how people can get involved or support the defendants see www.smashedo.org.uk