SOCPA - crown court appeal could open doors to mass civil disobedience
rikki / chris coverdale | 28.07.2006 23:36 | Indymedia | Repression | London
chris coverdale appeared in front of southwark crown court judges on thursday morning to appeal against his conviction under the new serious organised crime and police act for holding an 'unauthorised demonstration in parliament square (the designated area)'. rather than offering a human rights defence, he is challenging the legality of the Iraq war and the mass murder of 100,000 innocent Iraqis, claiming that in law the killings are an act of genocide and that he and every adult citizen has a duty in law to prevent the prime minister and members of the british government from committing such heinous crimes. the outcome of this case could have massive legal implications.
supporters outside the court on thursday
chris coverdale
international criminal court act
although not a trained lawyer, chris coverdale, a management consultant from wimbledon, has spent eight years investigating corruption in business and government in britain and four years researching domestic and international war law.
since the attack on iraq he has made more than two thousand unsuccessful attempts to prevent the war and hold those responsible for the deaths of innocent iraqis to account for their crimes in court. however the government, the police, the crown prosecution service and the judiciary have closed ranks to thwart him. eventually chris felt compelled to try a novel approach.
armed with a megaphone, a large banner and a pile of leaflets outlining the case against the government, he stood outside the gates of westminster and exhorted the police to arrest tony blair. the police decided this constituted an 'unauthorised demonstration' and when he appeared at bow street in front of deputy district judge cole earlier this month, he was found guilty of that offence.
chris's grounds for appeal challenge the written judgement handed down by mr. cole in two distinct ways. first, he lists errors in law made deliberately or otherwise, both in misrepresenting the arguments that he had originally put forward, and in misinterpreting fundamental aspects of war law. secondly, the judge ordered chris to pay costs which (as the government is currently using public money to help commit its war crimes) was a crime in itself.
on thursday, chris's chance to make these points was once again stifled.
judge geoffrey rivlin qc was clearly very unimpressed when the prosecution lawyer told him that they were seeking adjournment because the crown had not yet been able to provide their skeleton argument, and because mr. george, a counsel who was familiar with other socpa cases heard at bow street, was not available. judge rivlin reminded the lawyer that on 5th july prosecution had agreed to have the skeleton argument ready in two weeks, and he said it was completely unacceptable that that had not happened. he immediately awarded against the prosecution all costs for the day, including those of mr. coverdale, and in a very stern reprimand said that they absolutely should have been ready and it was quite wrong that they weren't.
turning to mr. coverdale, judge rivlin expressed concern over the fact that chris was representing himself. the judge suggested it was important that lawyers fully explored the trickier points of the law in such an important case. chris explained that he had attempted to get legal aid and the interest of several reputable firms, but so far without luck. he added that he'd tried to present the legal issues in various courts for more than 3 years, but each time, the crown and others had found ways and means not to hear such issues.
chris objected to any adjournment on the grounds that since the time of his arrest, 12,000 more people had died, and that each day that passed added more to that total and the continuing crime of genocide.
the judge retired with his two colleagues to consider, and after a few minutes returned to again harangue the prosecution, saying that he felt he'd been forced into allowing a wholly inexcusable adjournment. he demanded that a skeleton argument be prepared by noon next wednesday in time for the trial to be heard next friday the 4th august at 10am.
judge rivlin then issued what seemed to be some sort of friendly advice to chris that the law could not allow him to make 'political speeches' as part of his case, and warning him to be very careful about how he presents his defence, reminding him that the court has a responsibility to consider only the law laid down by other courts and the statute law laid down by parliament.
chris assured him that his defence would rely heavily on both the criminal law act 1967, and the international criminal court act 2001, which was ratified by the uk and thus forms part of uk law.
a powerful and specific part of chris's defence is that under section 3 of the criminal law act 1967 he has a lawful excuse for his actions, in that the law provides that “a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime”. more importantly however is that under the judgement of the nuremburg war crimes tribunal and the nuremburg principles every citizen has a duty in law to disobey the orders of a government in order to prevent it from committing the world’s worst crime, waging a war of aggression.
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
when hitler’s henchmen were convicted and hanged at nuremburg in 1946 for waging wars of aggression, their claim that they were only following hitler’s orders was rejected by the judges on the basis that :-
“The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal
if chris's case is successful next week, the legal implications are stunning.
if his argument is legally sound and accepted, then it opens up the possibility of massive civil disobedience on the same grounds. in theory it could be argued that even the assassination of tony blair himself might be legally defensible as it would still be a lesser crime than genocide! certainly all manner of civil disobedience would be not only excusable but also effectively mandatory, including, for instance, the withholding of tax.
In a separate case, chris appears in front of the high court next wednesday over the matter of his withholding tax since 1998. his grounds are that he would be committing the criminal offence of 'conduct ancillary to genocide' by handing over tax to the government which it will use to facilitate the crimes of genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes against the people of Iraq. chris points out that by ordering britain’s armed forces to use high explosive weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells illegally killing and injuring tens of thousands of totally innocent Iraqi men, women and children, tony blair and his co-conspirators committed genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are the worst crimes in english criminal law.
given the immense legal repercussions and ramifications, it may seem unlikely then that chris's case could succeed. on the other hand, the legal system was mainly set up by 'good men and true', and war crimes and the crime of genocide are indeed so reprehensible, that it is not really so illogical for the world of law to be turned upside down when these crimes are committed.
next friday could be a historic day in law and in war.
in the meantime, remember that when the judge awards 'costs' against the prosecution, it's taxpayers' money that is being used - perhaps if the money came out of the pockets of the crown prosecution staff responsible, we might see more justice in this country. also, with respect to the judge's concern that chris coverdale does not cross the fine line between legal argument and political speech, as one of chris's supporters put it, perhaps mr. rivlin would be good enough to explain to us how we should describe the mutilation, wounding and death of innocent women and children by cluster bombs in purely legal terms.
tax case - high court, the strand, room 110 thomas moore building 11am weds 2nd august
socpa case - southwark crown court friday 4th august
since the attack on iraq he has made more than two thousand unsuccessful attempts to prevent the war and hold those responsible for the deaths of innocent iraqis to account for their crimes in court. however the government, the police, the crown prosecution service and the judiciary have closed ranks to thwart him. eventually chris felt compelled to try a novel approach.
armed with a megaphone, a large banner and a pile of leaflets outlining the case against the government, he stood outside the gates of westminster and exhorted the police to arrest tony blair. the police decided this constituted an 'unauthorised demonstration' and when he appeared at bow street in front of deputy district judge cole earlier this month, he was found guilty of that offence.
chris's grounds for appeal challenge the written judgement handed down by mr. cole in two distinct ways. first, he lists errors in law made deliberately or otherwise, both in misrepresenting the arguments that he had originally put forward, and in misinterpreting fundamental aspects of war law. secondly, the judge ordered chris to pay costs which (as the government is currently using public money to help commit its war crimes) was a crime in itself.
on thursday, chris's chance to make these points was once again stifled.
judge geoffrey rivlin qc was clearly very unimpressed when the prosecution lawyer told him that they were seeking adjournment because the crown had not yet been able to provide their skeleton argument, and because mr. george, a counsel who was familiar with other socpa cases heard at bow street, was not available. judge rivlin reminded the lawyer that on 5th july prosecution had agreed to have the skeleton argument ready in two weeks, and he said it was completely unacceptable that that had not happened. he immediately awarded against the prosecution all costs for the day, including those of mr. coverdale, and in a very stern reprimand said that they absolutely should have been ready and it was quite wrong that they weren't.
turning to mr. coverdale, judge rivlin expressed concern over the fact that chris was representing himself. the judge suggested it was important that lawyers fully explored the trickier points of the law in such an important case. chris explained that he had attempted to get legal aid and the interest of several reputable firms, but so far without luck. he added that he'd tried to present the legal issues in various courts for more than 3 years, but each time, the crown and others had found ways and means not to hear such issues.
chris objected to any adjournment on the grounds that since the time of his arrest, 12,000 more people had died, and that each day that passed added more to that total and the continuing crime of genocide.
the judge retired with his two colleagues to consider, and after a few minutes returned to again harangue the prosecution, saying that he felt he'd been forced into allowing a wholly inexcusable adjournment. he demanded that a skeleton argument be prepared by noon next wednesday in time for the trial to be heard next friday the 4th august at 10am.
judge rivlin then issued what seemed to be some sort of friendly advice to chris that the law could not allow him to make 'political speeches' as part of his case, and warning him to be very careful about how he presents his defence, reminding him that the court has a responsibility to consider only the law laid down by other courts and the statute law laid down by parliament.
chris assured him that his defence would rely heavily on both the criminal law act 1967, and the international criminal court act 2001, which was ratified by the uk and thus forms part of uk law.
a powerful and specific part of chris's defence is that under section 3 of the criminal law act 1967 he has a lawful excuse for his actions, in that the law provides that “a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime”. more importantly however is that under the judgement of the nuremburg war crimes tribunal and the nuremburg principles every citizen has a duty in law to disobey the orders of a government in order to prevent it from committing the world’s worst crime, waging a war of aggression.
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
when hitler’s henchmen were convicted and hanged at nuremburg in 1946 for waging wars of aggression, their claim that they were only following hitler’s orders was rejected by the judges on the basis that :-
“The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal
if chris's case is successful next week, the legal implications are stunning.
if his argument is legally sound and accepted, then it opens up the possibility of massive civil disobedience on the same grounds. in theory it could be argued that even the assassination of tony blair himself might be legally defensible as it would still be a lesser crime than genocide! certainly all manner of civil disobedience would be not only excusable but also effectively mandatory, including, for instance, the withholding of tax.
In a separate case, chris appears in front of the high court next wednesday over the matter of his withholding tax since 1998. his grounds are that he would be committing the criminal offence of 'conduct ancillary to genocide' by handing over tax to the government which it will use to facilitate the crimes of genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes against the people of Iraq. chris points out that by ordering britain’s armed forces to use high explosive weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells illegally killing and injuring tens of thousands of totally innocent Iraqi men, women and children, tony blair and his co-conspirators committed genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are the worst crimes in english criminal law.
given the immense legal repercussions and ramifications, it may seem unlikely then that chris's case could succeed. on the other hand, the legal system was mainly set up by 'good men and true', and war crimes and the crime of genocide are indeed so reprehensible, that it is not really so illogical for the world of law to be turned upside down when these crimes are committed.
next friday could be a historic day in law and in war.
in the meantime, remember that when the judge awards 'costs' against the prosecution, it's taxpayers' money that is being used - perhaps if the money came out of the pockets of the crown prosecution staff responsible, we might see more justice in this country. also, with respect to the judge's concern that chris coverdale does not cross the fine line between legal argument and political speech, as one of chris's supporters put it, perhaps mr. rivlin would be good enough to explain to us how we should describe the mutilation, wounding and death of innocent women and children by cluster bombs in purely legal terms.
tax case - high court, the strand, room 110 thomas moore building 11am weds 2nd august
socpa case - southwark crown court friday 4th august
rikki / chris coverdale
e-mail:
rikkiindymedia@googlemail.com
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
waging aggressive war is the supreme crime- but who judges the victors
29.07.2006 05:59
It doesn't take a genius to work out the hypocrisy involved here, and that such a decision was ONLY made because the age of empire was dead, and the old empire players no longer expected to actively benefit from future use of aggressive warfare themselves. In other words, we punished the nazis for playing to the same rules that ALL empire nations had used to justify their sickening crimes, as they raped and plundered other people's nations.
This was a GOOD THING. Humans have to grow up morally, regardless of the potential cries of hypocrite. Look at Britain, and the abolishment of slavery, for instance. Same situation all over again.
However, what happens when powerful nations use their power to move backwards morally, and tear up the agreed new moral rules. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF BLAIR AND BUSH REINTRODUCED HUMAN SLAVERY?
The question is not crazy (and odds are that if you live for another forty years, you will see such a thing happen). You see, Blair and Bush have both stated that they have reintroduced the option of AGGRESSIVE WAR as a means of state power, and the crime of aggressive war has been responsible for more Human suffering than the crime of Human slavery.
It is a unfunny joke that if Hitler had won the war, vast numbers of allied leaders, political and military, would have been in the dock for clear crimes against humanity, and that these charges would have been true. The victors get to write the history, and judge the losers.
From this, we can take this understanding- Nuremberg declared Blair's aggressive wars against Serbia/Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Lebanon to be the SUPREME CRIME, but Nuremberg has no power to gain a conviction against Blair today. We are left with the words from that hearing, Human Rights laws partially based on its judgements, and the direct proof of Blair's responsibility for aggressive war against the sovereign nation of Iraq.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE:
We don't have a court system under the control of the people
We don't have a police force under the control of the people
We don't have the armed forces under the control of the people.
We don't have a press under the control of the people.
We are unarmed, we are mostly frightened to even exercise our remaining rights
We don't have a functioning multi-party democracy
It may suprise you to know that it was illegal for Hitler to wage aggressive war even under the laws of his own adopted nation. Somehow, that little fact did not stop him. Care to guess why? Want to look at that list of what we don't have for a clue to the answer?
Blair is going NOWHERE. Blair's police ARE NOT going to arrest him, and Blair's courts ARE NOT going to issue damaging judgements against him (and if you think this has already happened, again you REALLY should learn the history of Hitler, and his rise to power- sometimes Blair and Hitler have/had greater fish to fry at a particular moment in their progression, giving people a false impression of vunerability, or a misstep).
People like Chris Coverdale and his supporters are fighting a real battle against Blair. Compare their posters with the disgraceful Blair-friendly placards that Blair's agents in the official 'stop-the-war' coalition force people to use. However, the lie that these people can win a decisive victory on our behalf shames us all. We have the numbers, and that is the ONLY advantage we have over Blair. Only by taking advantage of the examples set by wonderful Humans like Mr Coverdale, Mr Haw, and Ms Sheehan, and magnifying their efforts tens of millions fold can we even begin to hope for victory.
REMEMBER, Blair has no powerful enemies, but masses of powerful friends. He faces no political opposition of any significance in the UK, either from other parties, or within his own. He does not have to worry about levels of active support in the country, having been voted into absolute power with the support of just one-in-five of the electorate. So powerful is Blair that he requires the media to run frequent psyops suggesting that he is about to step down, or be replaced, to steady the nerves of his sheep. Everyone needs to believe in a viable future, and it amuses Blair that he gives hope to his 'people' by allowing rumours of his departure to spread at regular intervals.
Blair knows that he can stop the games when he finally becomes a war time dictator, and the time for that is nearly here.
In the meantime, it has been Blair's pleasure to destroy the last remnants of our unwritten constitution. The ASBO was used to destroy whole chunks of the Magna Carta- the very concept of written law defined by parliament and followed to the letter by the courts utterly destroyed by a nation of dribblers mindlessly cheering the propaganda campaigns of Rupert Murdoch. Blair is happy to give the mob their hearts desire, when said desire has been planted there by Blair himself.
It gets worse, however. Even without the changes made by Blair, the courts would have no power over him (what do you think is the point of a parliamentary democracy, if the courts had the power to challenge the will of the people?) Blair can only be bought down by actions within parliament or his party. Blair's support within his party (amongst those that matter) is cast iron, and he can also rely on the support of a significant chunk of Conservative MP's if need be.
So what about OUR victory? How do the people win in such a situation? Well, first we need leaders less, and inspirational heroes more. We must take note of those that fight hardest against Blair, and hold their efforts precious in our hearts. We must seek to understand the true nature of our fight, and reject the words of all of those that work to weaken our resolve. We must anticipate the actions of our enemies, even when such enemies present themselves as friends.
It is essential that we remember that those that TRULY fight for victory care more about winning than playing the game, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A GAME BUT A FIGHT FOR THE SOUL OF MANKIND. 'Trainspotters' (those for whom activism is merely a mindless hobby) may not mean any harm, but some issues are far too important to allow any person to hinder the fight. Besides, the 'trainspotters' are all too easily employed by Blair's agents as 'Animal Farm'-style 'sheep' giving support to said agents in their attempts to sabotage the fight by bleating down all effective plans of action (protest cannot be a 'voting democracy', where the majority controls the strategy, no matter how hopeless the plan) .
The action against Blair's invasion of Iraq by millions of Britons needed vast amounts of planning, but the force that created massive participation was the individual thoughts of pure spontaneous anger in the unrelated minds of millions of people. The people of the world loathe the actions of Blair, Bush and Israel, but feel they have no where to go. Blair has worked relentlessly to create a feeling of hopelessness after the last major protests. The last time should have finished Blair, but he was well prepared, and had but one goal, to ensure that no national anti-war party stood in a majority of seats at any national election. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAR TO ACHIEVE SUCH A GOAL, BY HAVING YOUR PEOPLE AT THE TOP OF ALL SUCH ANTI-WAR PARTIES.
It is hard to be positive at a time like this. False optimism (understandable, but not really helpful) is probably why I am typing this. The brave dissidents that openly confront Blair will win nothing but moral victories, and when Blair is ready to move to the next stage, the dissidents will suffer the same horrific fate as their kind always does in times like these. Aggressive war is such a nasty extreme crime, that all other crimes are nothing to Blair, allowing him to carry out such lesser crimes without a moments pause when the time comes. It is always thus, as your History Books should have taught you, but no-one ever expects their own history to follow such well trod paths.
I wish Mr Coverdale well. It is more than possible that he can win a victory for himself. It is, however, less than impossible at this moment that he can win a victory against Blair. Either way, he has set an excellent example for all of us.
twilight
Kofi Annan United Nations Secretary-General HAS delared Iraq war illegal
29.07.2006 09:19
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".
Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.
The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.
"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Kofi Annan
So here it is the United Nations Secretary General says its illegal but the UK Government claim it is legal and use resolutions from the United Nations itself for justification i.e the government try to claim legality comes from the very body that says it WAS illegal
Now what kind of fools would want to have to go into a court and have a Barrister examine that argument
Thanks to people like Chris Coverdale and Military Families against War the Government/Bliar are being repeatedly dragged back to this
Do you know what Dowing Street say "Move on we have discussed all this before" and even quote the Hutton enquiry as evidence its all been examined
I would humbly suggest that Hutton is evidence for the Prosecution of Blair not his defence
I believe Bliar will be the first British Prime Minister prosecuted for War crimes and he will learn a lesson about arrogantly ignoring the wishes of 2 million who marched to say not in my name and many others who were not there but felt the same
I hope there will be a breakthrough soon in the British courts
If there isnt a large public building should be hired and a peoples court set up to try Bliar
and the verdict made known to the whole world, of course he may be found innocent but that would be a risk we would just have to take
mike d
mike d
e-mail:
solidaritypark@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.myspace.com/solidaritypark
Mass defiance of the protest ban area was planned months ago!
29.07.2006 09:35
Only about 1,200 people have signed up for it in the past 15 months!
Remember the forgotton protest?
the pledge
29.07.2006 11:21
As such the pledge is specifically not about defiance of the SOCPA law.
Brian B
Homepage:
http://www.brianb.uklinux.net/antiwar-discuss/