Skip to content or view screen version

Sequani trial stitch up

Tonto | 16.05.2008 23:40 | Stop Sequani Animal Testing | Analysis | Animal Liberation | Repression | Birmingham

The vindictive state twists the knife.

Although all defendants were overwhelmed by the kindness of so many people and reiterate their heartfelt thanks,it should be clarified that their travel expenses, covering over 18 months,remain the cause of considerable financial loss.
The presiding judge after being presented with the printout from *Indymedia;that referred to`all the defendants expenses were covered by the donations`, the judge rescinded his previous decision to allow the defendants travel expenses, therefore after two years since the arrests and the 18 weeks of the trial.Nothing ! One of the defendants is out of pocket to the tune of over £3,000 even when one takes off the donations so kindly made, bearing in mind this person was acquitted by a unanimous jury verdict,a first for a person charged under SOCPA s.145. Another two were acquitted and another two had a hung jury. The sentences for two males is to be at a later date,one is remanded in custody.
So the state spends 4 Million pounds + on a trial, but will not re-imberse travel expenses for
for the people not guilty of any crime. Justice. Huh!

*See Indymedia posting.:Support sequani six letter.

Tonto

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

Out of Pocket

17.05.2008 14:38

In addition to travel expenses, some defendants experienced loss earnings. How is that going to be compensated? This is absolutely outrageous! Household bills keep coming in even when people are on trial. Financially it will take some time for people to recover. Not that I expect the judge to understand this. His wage packet is in a different league to most people.

Liberty


This system is a load of bollocks

18.05.2008 09:42

This is a disgrace! They will try and penalise you guys in any way they can, even if it's something as lowly and pathetic as this...

in solidarity! x

Supporter


Whop wrote the article?

18.05.2008 19:03

How do we know that it wasn't someone from Sequani or the prosecution that wrote original article just so that they could pull this trick?

An indymedia article shouldn't be admissible in court surely? What next - the prosecution basing it's case on a wikipedia article.

Who?