section 132 of the 'serious organised crime and police act' (SOCPA) bans unauthorised demonstration in the designated area (within around 1km of parliament). the new law came into force on 1st august this year and legislates that, in order to comply, one must give police seven days notice of any demonstration within the area, with details of the organisers, numbers expected, likely actions, time, place and date etc. the police may then use this information to apply conditions including numbers, length of protest, whether banners are allowed, whether any sound amplification is allowed (usually not), and so on.

the law was rushed through and badly framed, and the high court has since declared that brian haw's protest (which has been going on night and day for four years) started before the law came into effect, and that it cannot be applied to him retrospectively. farcically then, the one person that they wanted to get rid of, is now the ONLY person in the whole of britain who does not need to gain state authorisation to protest within 1 km of parliament.

milan rai (of campaigning group justice not vengeance www.j.n.v.org) was planning to commemorate the anniversary of the lancet report that showed that 100, 000 iraqis had been killed in the invasion up to september 2004. the ceremony involved tolling a bell and reading out the names of those known to have died (both iraqis and also british soldiers). because of length of time needed, the ceremony was split into four parts, starting in brighton, then at northwood military base north of london, then at downing street, and finally in hastings.

milan called the events and operations office at charing cross station in advance to check whether any demos were planned for the morning of the 25th october, and to notify them the time he was planning the ceremony, the likely number of attendees (less than 5), and an outline of the nature of the event. due to human rights implications, and knowing of the ongoing fight against this undemocratic and dangerous new law, he decided not to comply with the police request to fill in their application form. he was warned that the demo would be 'unauthorised' and that he would be liable for arrest.

the first two parts of the ceremony passed uneventfully, although at northwood, police asked participants to move across the road and they complied.

at 9 am on the 25th, a drizzly tuesday morning, milan was greeted opposite downing street by police constable paul mcnally accompanied by two vans, a sergeant, and 11 other officers. he was told that there would be 'zero tolerance' and that if he did not move in five minutes he would be arrested.

not doubting this, milan left to warn the other participant in the ceremony that this was the case, and to get the bells to a safe place so that they could be used later in hastings. that other participant was maya evans who appeared in court today.

once the bells were safe, the two of them returned to the protest pen opposite downing street, and quietly started reading out the names of the dead. they each had a cardboard banner, and were also wearing 'a4' sized banners round their necks. a few passers-by took notice, but the peaceful protest did not attract a crowd, did not cause any obstruction, and remained calm and dignified. however, police once again warned both participants that they would be liable to arrest, and ten minutes later at 9.42am, they were taken to charing cross station where maya was charged and released on bail mid-afternoon. milan is still awaiting to hear whether he will be charged and whether that charge may be the more serious one of 'organising an unauthorised demonstration' which can lead to imprisonment for up to 51 weeks.

maya's case was heard at bow streets magistrates' court this morning and her supporters there included brian haw, milan rai, people from 'justice not vengeance', people from the anti-SOCPA group 'people in common', friends, family, and reporters. outside the court, the names of iraqi dead were read out along with bell-ringing in a re-enactment of the 'illegal' protest.

maya appeared in front of a magistrate at court 3, where she told the court that while not disputing the facts of the case, she did not recognise the validity of a law that restricted her in any way from performing this important act. it was important to perform this ceremony near the women's war memorial, near the cenotaph, and near tony blair's residence. she wanted to raise awareness of iraqi mortalities especially nearing the anniversary of the siege at fallujah where 700 were killed including 550 civilian women and children.

the defence argued that in order to convict, the prosecution would have to show that in a democratic society it was necessary to infringe maya's human rights (specifically article 10 - freedom of expression, and article 11 - freedom of assembly). the defending solicitor, mr. mackenzie, pointed out that the SOCPA (in section 134) set out some reasons for its existence: to prevent hindrance to persons attending the palace of westminster; to prevent hindrance to the operation of parliament; and to prevent serious public disorder, security threats etc. it was clear that none of this could possibly apply to milan and maya's ceremony. it was also important to show, that given the democratic right in the rest of the country to demonstrate, that there is something so special about the whole of the rather wide designated area that even such a small static protest could require authorisation and risk criminalisation.

the human rights act does allow for restrictions on protest in terms of prevention of public disorder, safety, and so on, but the defence argued that since milan had been in touch with the police and they were aware of the protest, its nature and intention, the requirement for authorisation and the subsequent criminalisation were wholly unnecessary and disproportionate.

after a brief recess, the magistrate emerged at 12.30 to give the verdict. she pointed out that there was no dispute over the facts of the case, and noted that it is not open to a magistrate to directly challenge a law on human rights or any other basis - that would be for a higher court. she did however agree that the interpretation of existing legislation must be compatible with the human rights act. section 132 is itself unambiguous, but it is necessary to read in a human rights proviso that no offence is committed unless it is shown that it was necessary in a democratic society to impose restrictions in order to avoid hindrance, disorder etc. she agreed that if authorisation had been applied for, then no conditions were likely, but then went on to conclude that the balance between public order issues and the human rights act is for parliament to decide, and that parliament had framed this legislation after consideration in an unambiguous way. therefore in her view it was not necessary to read any proviso into section 132, it should be given its natural meaning, and thus, maya evans had committed the offence under that section.

due to the highly relevant mitigating circumstances (that the protest was small, peaceful and orderly, and that maya had co-operated fully with the arrest procedure) the magistrate imposed a penalty of a 12 month conditional discharge. the prosecution requested £200 costs, and the magistrate halved this to £100 payable at £5pw and starting within 28 days.

outside the court maya gave interviews to the media including a live one to itn 'london today' news. it is likely that the verdict will be challenged and appeal made to a higher court.

today's court case was the very first brought under the SOCPA, although maya's was one of the most recent arrests. at least 20 others are thought to be standing trial in the new year (although police at one time confirmed 27 arrests in all), and milan rai is still waiting for confirmation whether he may stand trial for the more serious offence as 'organiser'. it's possible the crown prosecution service were waiting for today's outcome before making that decision.

for footage of the remembrance ceremony on the 25th october, see www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326409.html (see comments there for the link to working version of smaller format video)

and for more information about the ongoing challenge to this law, check out www.peopleincommon.org