Trial Set for McDonalds Protester!
McProtester | 07.07.2008 13:34 | Animal Liberation | Globalisation | Repression | Cambridge | World
The campaigner who was arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act in a McLibel anniversary protest in Cambridge (See 
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401637.html for details and video) had his first hearing last Thursday. A trial date of the 15th Sep, 10.00 a.m. at Cambridge Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge was set. The court set a full day trial for the case.
The prosecution handed over witness statements and said they wanted to use CCTV from McDonalds as well as a Youtube video (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld3I4zVxc2A). Well, have a look and judge for yourself. What an evil dangerous protest, right?
The campaigner is still awaiting his request for legal aid and so has no representation at this time.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act basically is words or behaviour likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ and as we all know holding a placard and expressing your views in McDonalds is very harassing, alarming and distressing and a terrible crime!
Trial Date:
15th Sep, 10.00 a.m. at Cambridge Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge – Support Welcome!
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401637.html for details and video) had his first hearing last Thursday. A trial date of the 15th Sep, 10.00 a.m. at Cambridge Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge was set. The court set a full day trial for the case. The prosecution handed over witness statements and said they wanted to use CCTV from McDonalds as well as a Youtube video (see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld3I4zVxc2A). Well, have a look and judge for yourself. What an evil dangerous protest, right? The campaigner is still awaiting his request for legal aid and so has no representation at this time.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act basically is words or behaviour likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ and as we all know holding a placard and expressing your views in McDonalds is very harassing, alarming and distressing and a terrible crime!
Trial Date:
15th Sep, 10.00 a.m. at Cambridge Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge – Support Welcome!
McProtester
Additions
Important info re. Sec 5
11.07.2008 11:09
Section 5 is frequently misused by the police against protesters, so it is vital that people understand what a S5 offence actually is. i.e. it's not 'basically causing alarm, harassment or distress', IN FACT a person commits S5 if they:
" a) use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, or
b) display any writing, sign, or other visual representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused alarm, harassment or distress thereby".
So, the key words to remember are threatening, abusive, insulting, disorderly. Any protest about something nasty could upset/distress/offend someone, but that doesn't mean the offence is made out. Merely causing alarm, harassment or distress is NOT a S5 offence, there has to be a threatening/abusive/insulting/disorderly element.
" a) use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, or
b) display any writing, sign, or other visual representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused alarm, harassment or distress thereby".
So, the key words to remember are threatening, abusive, insulting, disorderly. Any protest about something nasty could upset/distress/offend someone, but that doesn't mean the offence is made out. Merely causing alarm, harassment or distress is NOT a S5 offence, there has to be a threatening/abusive/insulting/disorderly element.
Barbara
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Yeah, right...
07.07.2008 14:34
No pack drill...
What a waste of tax payers money
07.07.2008 21:57
Fuck Cambridgeshire Police
Malicious prosecution ...?
08.07.2008 07:06
Maxell
Well done...
08.07.2008 14:57
....to McProtester for standing up for your rights. That cop is going to look very silly when that video is shown in court. If he had grounds for arresting you under section 5 then he should have done so, regardless of whether or not you were prepared to give your date of birth. He obviously has as good a grasp of the law as your average PC Plod. What a muppet.
supporter
Thanks To Barbara…
11.07.2008 15:11
McProtester