Smash EDO - CPS drop CIA case
smashnik | 09.02.2006 04:11 | Anti-militarism | Repression | London | South Coast
SMASH EDO
http://www.smashedo.org.uk
_________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE
8th February 2006
EMBARGO : FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
________________________________________________
Press Contact:
Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson
07875 708873
________________________________________________
CIA 3 CASE DISMISSED AFTER JUDGE ORDERS HANDOVER OF
SECRET DOCUMENTS
__________________________________________________
A criminal prosecution against peace protesters was
dramatically dropped yesterday because the Crown
Prosecution Sevice did not want to to disclose secret
information that a Judge had ordered would assist the
defence and they should see.
Three anti-arms trade activists were on trial in
Brighton Magistrates Court for refusing to disperse
under a Section 14 order at a Weapons Inspection at
Brighton bomb-makers EDO MBM last year on March 21st.
The theatrical protest took place on the second
anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on March 21st
2004.An expert witness was to be Mark Thomas,
political activist/comedian/writer who was to testify
on the great tradition of theatrical protest for the
defence case.
The trial was delayed Monday over legal arguments
about disclosure of 'sensitive police material' that
the protesters said would assit their case. The CPS
had not been carrying out their duty to disclose
police information in the case since the arrests in
March 2004, the defence team argued.
After lenghthy ex parte discussion between the CPS and
District Judge Cooper, the Judge finally ordered that
information about the police operation-codenamed
'Kirk'- of 21st March 2005 be made public as it might
assist the defence argument of police collusion with
the arms company EDO in trying to supress protests at
the factory.
Tne Crown had argued that the documents should be
protected from disclosure under Public Interest
Immunity (PII) rules, which are used protect security
of police informers and undercover officers as well as
police operational tactics. But Judge Cooper ruled in
favour of disclosing the documents. At which point the
CPS prosecuter stood up and announced the case would
be dismissed against all three protesters. This
stopped the public disclosure of the documents go
ahead.
Smash Edo spokesperson Andrew Beckett said 'What
information could be so controversial that a case that
has dragged on for nearly a year should be dropped as
soon as it might be made public. What are the police
trying to hide about their relationship with the
police?'
In paralel civil injunction proceedings brought by
bomb makers EDO in the High Court, protesters have
argued that the injunction action is the result of
collusion between Sussex Police and EDO to stop
protests at the factory.
A key witness in the Civil proceedings is Chief
Inspector Kerry Cox, who worked closely with EDO last
year to support the High Court application for an
interim injunction against protesters. It emerged this
week that CO Cox had been the commanding officer in
Operation Kirk.
The latest criminal case dismissal means that now
five cases that were being relied on by EDO's lawyers
to justify allegations of harassment against their
employees have now been won by protesters-seriously
damaging even further the arms company's case for a
permanent injunction against protesters.
In addition EDO's lawyer solicitor-advocate Tim-Lawson
Cruttenden faces serious allegations of misconduct,
and professional negligence that he has been ordered
to employ a barrister to defend himself against next
week in the High Court resumed hearing of the the
Civil injunction case.
The defendants have applied to have the case struck
out on grounds of abuse of process. EDO are
desperately trying to settle the case with the
defendants
before the hearing next week.
______________________________________________
EDO HIGH COURT INJUNCTION HEARING
Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. 10:am.
Monday 13th Feb-15th Feb 2006
_________________________________________________
DEMONSTRATION
EDO MBM, Home Farm Road, Brighton.
14th February
Naming the Dead
We will be up at EDO MBM naming some of the dead from
the illegal attack on Iraq - bring bells to toll for
each lost life as we remind EDO that such killings
would be impossible without all the people 'just doing
their jobs' that make it possible for the person
pulling the trigger to do theirs.
___________________________________________
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
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
amongstothers. They supply crucial components for
Raytheon's Paveway 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. Theyhave 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.
(END)
http://www.smashedo.org.uk _________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE
8th February 2006
EMBARGO : FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
________________________________________________
Press Contact:
Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson
07875 708873
________________________________________________
CIA 3 CASE DISMISSED AFTER JUDGE ORDERS HANDOVER OF
SECRET DOCUMENTS
__________________________________________________
A criminal prosecution against peace protesters was
dramatically dropped yesterday because the Crown
Prosecution Sevice did not want to to disclose secret
information that a Judge had ordered would assist the
defence and they should see.
Three anti-arms trade activists were on trial in
Brighton Magistrates Court for refusing to disperse
under a Section 14 order at a Weapons Inspection at
Brighton bomb-makers EDO MBM last year on March 21st.
The theatrical protest took place on the second
anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on March 21st
2004.An expert witness was to be Mark Thomas,
political activist/comedian/writer who was to testify
on the great tradition of theatrical protest for the
defence case.
The trial was delayed Monday over legal arguments
about disclosure of 'sensitive police material' that
the protesters said would assit their case. The CPS
had not been carrying out their duty to disclose
police information in the case since the arrests in
March 2004, the defence team argued.
After lenghthy ex parte discussion between the CPS and
District Judge Cooper, the Judge finally ordered that
information about the police operation-codenamed
'Kirk'- of 21st March 2005 be made public as it might
assist the defence argument of police collusion with
the arms company EDO in trying to supress protests at
the factory.
Tne Crown had argued that the documents should be
protected from disclosure under Public Interest
Immunity (PII) rules, which are used protect security
of police informers and undercover officers as well as
police operational tactics. But Judge Cooper ruled in
favour of disclosing the documents. At which point the
CPS prosecuter stood up and announced the case would
be dismissed against all three protesters. This
stopped the public disclosure of the documents go
ahead.
Smash Edo spokesperson Andrew Beckett said 'What
information could be so controversial that a case that
has dragged on for nearly a year should be dropped as
soon as it might be made public. What are the police
trying to hide about their relationship with the
police?'
In paralel civil injunction proceedings brought by
bomb makers EDO in the High Court, protesters have
argued that the injunction action is the result of
collusion between Sussex Police and EDO to stop
protests at the factory.
A key witness in the Civil proceedings is Chief
Inspector Kerry Cox, who worked closely with EDO last
year to support the High Court application for an
interim injunction against protesters. It emerged this
week that CO Cox had been the commanding officer in
Operation Kirk.
The latest criminal case dismissal means that now
five cases that were being relied on by EDO's lawyers
to justify allegations of harassment against their
employees have now been won by protesters-seriously
damaging even further the arms company's case for a
permanent injunction against protesters.
In addition EDO's lawyer solicitor-advocate Tim-Lawson
Cruttenden faces serious allegations of misconduct,
and professional negligence that he has been ordered
to employ a barrister to defend himself against next
week in the High Court resumed hearing of the the
Civil injunction case.
The defendants have applied to have the case struck
out on grounds of abuse of process. EDO are
desperately trying to settle the case with the
defendants
before the hearing next week.
______________________________________________
EDO HIGH COURT INJUNCTION HEARING
Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London. 10:am.
Monday 13th Feb-15th Feb 2006
_________________________________________________
DEMONSTRATION
EDO MBM, Home Farm Road, Brighton.
14th February
Naming the Dead
We will be up at EDO MBM naming some of the dead from
the illegal attack on Iraq - bring bells to toll for
each lost life as we remind EDO that such killings
would be impossible without all the people 'just doing
their jobs' that make it possible for the person
pulling the trigger to do theirs.
___________________________________________
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
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
amongstothers. They supply crucial components for
Raytheon's Paveway 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. Theyhave 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.
(END)
smashnik
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
link to Brighton Argus article
09.02.2006 12:41
CIKC
CI Kerry Cox on protecting sensitive police information
09.02.2006 14:20
EDO/sussex police high court injunction against the right to protest. She fails to mention that the sensitive police information was more than likely all about her relationship with bomb makers EDO corporation...
The Argus
Thursday Feb 9 2006
News
Charges against protesters dropped
by Rob Hustwayte
Criminal charges against three peace protesters who staged a mock weapons inspection at an arms components factory have been dropped.
The case against Paul Robinson, Jaya Sacca and Lorna Marcham collapsed after a judge ordered prosecutors to disclose details about police tactics on the day of the demonstration.
The Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the charges after two days of legal argument at Brighton Magistrates Court because Sussex Police did not want the information in the public domain.
The three were arrested for alleged public order offences when they took part in a protest outside the EDO MBM factory in Home Farm Road, Brighton, last March.
The factory makes bomb release components for fighter jets and has been a target for anti-war campaigners for almost two years.
Mr Sacca, 34, of Springfield Road, Brighton, has now launched civil proceedings accusing the police of arresting him maliciously.
Mr Robinson, 32, of Coombe Road, Brighton, said: "The collapse of this case upholds our view that our arrests were a result of heavy-handed policing designed to outlaw peaceful protest."
The three were among a group of 12 protesters from the organisation Smash EDO who dressed in white boiler suits and demonstrated outside the factory.
They were arrested under Section 14 of the Public Order Act for failing to comply with the conditions of a police order restricting them to a certain area and limiting the time of the demonstration.
Mr Robinson added: "It was a theatrical protest, a media stunt, and at no time were we intending to intimidate or harass EDO employees.
"We believe the arrests were designed to add weight to EDO's application for a High Court injunction the following week preventing protest at the factory."
The defendants had lined up comedy activist Mark Thomas to appear at the trial as an expert witness on theatrical protests.
Chief Inspector Kerry Cox, of Sussex Police, said: "Sussex Police and the CPS were right to bring about a prosecution against these defendants.
"At the trial, the prosecution were asked to disclose specific details in relation to operational tactics and sensitive information used to brief police officers.
"As a result, and in order to rightly protect this police information, the prosecution took the decision to not disclose the details and took the preferred option to offer no evidence in this case.
"The prosecution could not therefore proceed.
"Legislation exists in order to protect sensitive police information from disclosure when necessary and it was this that influenced the decision taken in this case."
Last month Mr Sacca, Miss Marcham, 20, from Southampton, and Tom Gittoes, 22, of Preston Drove, Brighton, had earlier convictions of trespass at the factory overturned by a judge at appeal.
They were arrested for staging a rooftop demonstration at the factory last year.
EDO MBM secured an interim injunction limiting the activities of protesters at the factory in order to prevent staff being harassed. A further High Court hearing on the case is set for next week.
Meanwhile, a further protest has been planned outside the factory on February 14 from 4-6pm.
---
jim smith
beam me up Scotty.
09.02.2006 18:29
I SUBMIT- NOT GUILTY YER HONOUR.
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE BELOW NEEDS NOT CAREFUL DETECTIVE WORK TO SHOW WHO IS THE REAL DANGER TO PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.
COME ON NOW COPS YOU NEVER THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD STICK? DID YOU?
Spock.
excellent result
10.02.2006 07:43
Kerry Cox - Dumb pig, you messed up big time.
run them out