judge cole's decision appeared to wilfully ignore aspects of chris coverdale's thoroughly researched defence (reported at  http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/06/342190.html)

the judge concentrated on a house of lords ruling that a 'war of aggression' is not a crime under section 3 and said that this 'was not the sort of case that section 3 was designed to cover' in his opinion. but chris' defence had already pointed out that there was some doubt over the definition of 'war of aggression' and instead listed further crimes which clearly ARE covered by section 3. the judge tried to lump everything together under this one argument and also added that he was satisfied chris' actions were indeed a demonstration and not an attempt to report crimes. section 3 is the legislation that allows the defence to show that it was necessary to commit a lesser crime in order to stop a greater crime.

he handed down a 12 month conditional discharge with no fine, but £250 costs.

chris will appeal to the crown court.