Skip to content or view screen version

CAD 3193 Charity Sweet says that this court is corrupt.

charity sweet | 19.06.2010 20:16 | SOCPA | History | Repression | Social Struggles | World

griffith williams lj - who are u?

16 June 2010

Start time: 14:10pm

Judge: abuse of process application for Charity Sweet:

You handed me a statement this morning which I have read, it has no links with the matters I am dealing with today.

CS: it is are you saying this is just a coincidence? This is the 4th time they have arrived at my house when I have mentioned the name Maria G.

Judge: calm down, calm down, please be quite.

CS: If I can’t take part I will sit where I want.

Judge: I refused the application made yesterday by CS, and indicated that I would read the docs provided by CS and if I considered their to be substance in material I would consider it. I remain of the same view that there is no relevance.

CS asserts that DV prompted by the work of Maria G who is alleges she is an agent provocateur. It is clear on papers provided that since April 2009 BH has disassociated himself from peace strike campaign, and that Maria G should be joined to the defendant list. I said that that was a decision for Claimants to make.

If Maria G is an agent provocateur, then abuse of process application can be made, she has done more than organised the peace campaign.

CS says that this court is corrupt.

There is no relevance for an abuse of process. Application is refused. Application to leave to appeal is also refused.

Jurisdiction issues.

Order of possession- decision is the Mayor is so entitled for reasons which will be delivered in due course in my judgment, it is not my intention to give 2 judgments.


PH: application for severance against 2 and 3rd d.

1: BH is unique in that he is only person who has ever protested and demonstrated for the length of time. 9yrs. In that time he has become a national institution. Throughout his protest he has been on the grass at PSG.

2: thus, there is not the urgency of requiring him to leave at this particular time. DV protestors came on 1st May and in larger numbers, they should not be there. In those numbers, they are doing something on a different nature. Dealing with DV is a fairly urgent matter and a big pressing issue.

3. Bad feeling between BH and BT and DV protestors that BH feels DV have lowered the tone and they resents them being there.

4. BH has not had proper time to prepare, normal civil trials, service on 26 may we would be nowhere near a trial. He would usually have a matter of months to check facts, allow lawyers to research etc and he has not had that time. To press on now would be obstructive to BH protest as matter is not urgent

J: has he encroached on the gardens. He has not denied he has done so and BT.


For good reasons he slept on the grass, if he was forced to sleep on the grass it would impair his demonstration. It is a situation where facts and jurisprudence need to be looked at careful. The speed makes it difficult if not impossible.

Art 6 ECHR fair public hearing within a reasonable time. Time lapse is simply not reasonable time and not long enough.

I note that reasonable time is usually about delay.

There is a final point = possible compromise. Not disputed that BH and BT have slept on the grass

In the past there have been compromise between them and Mr Grinter: Pg 180 tb para 12

It seems not impossible that if the matter was put on a lesser track, compromise could come about.

The case is about how much encroachment of the grass is tolerable. ADR rather than lit.


Severance BH and BT

1. Where issues could be heard together they should be.

2. The Mayor is going to have call his evidence and = weight to be given to public who will use gardens. Injunctive relief could be made without BH being present = would have to be revisited= unworkable.

Factual difference and antagonism between DV and BT and BH.

Urgency? It is at least arguable that having BH ther is an encouragement to others.

More time? Part 55= dealt with expeditiously. He may have more witnesses etc… but its a short period of time.

Compromise= no camping on the garden if BH wants to discuss that b4 judgment fine.

Friend: urgency is called for.

J: as your cases are linked to you associate your

BH and BT have 2 different issues. Authorise demonstrator and unauthorised demonstrator.

DV is being used to punish them the same. They could have followed there own bylaws.

J: if you speak again I will remove u from this point.

PH: he said that the court will need to determine public defence= difficult legal issues.

Kay v London borough lambeth. K was concerned with right to private life.

We are concerned here art 10 and 11. No authority to say they can be relied on in these proceedings.

The factual background is different. That is the reason y it benefits from detailed analyse of the jurisprudence. With DV urgency is trump card with BH it is simply isn’t.

2. interest of other members of the public. Public interest is diff to BH. This is the 1st time GLA have brought this kind of proceedings against BH.

Saving court may well be an illusion as it is difficult to predict what happens either.

BH severally impeded if proceedings are continued.

J: 2 groups in these proceedings- DV and BH/BT and 4th def CS who has associated herself, it is on behalf of BH and BT PH submits that proceedings should be severed. Cs would have been well advised to adopt PH’s submission.

PH submits no sense of urgency in proceedings against Defendants 2 3 and 4 because BH demonstration is well est and lawful and it remains on the pavement and he uses PSG for sleeping purposes.

Ph says bad feelings between BH and DV protestors, and that BH has not had proper time to prepare his defence to this case. Ph points out that the defence is one of reasonable and right to freedom of assembly

Underwood ; says with both there are issues of public law defences and the remit of public law defences.

Right of the public to access the gardens and says that where there are joint issues the proceedings should be tried together unless there are uncanning reasons why.

I agree with that

Bad feeling – not matter to prevent them being heard together-

Issues of insufficient time to prepare- service effected on 26 May- part 55 is that there is a sense of urgency.

Reasonableness and freedom of assembly does not need that much time to prepare.

Willing to hear that evidence that BH wants to say

I am not persuaded that there are Art6 issues

Possible compromise- would prefer if there could be a compromise, but that is a matter for the parties, and could be discussed

Application for severance is refused.



See : Macfale

Court can not give anytime, he must make an order for possession, order must be made.

Kay v Lambeth

Art 8 case pg 466- f-g

pg 517

para 36 let h- and para 37

Whatever the conventional human rights the court has no discretion.

Brian haw: Mr. Luba there are additional arguments to make and I will be putting this in writing. Normally the court will only listen to arguments of counsel I will allow you write them out and I will read them out.

Judge: Adjourn 5 mins


Simon Grinter called

Copies to be given of annotated statement to be given to PH.

Simon Grinter statement read out

Pg 185

Pg 57

Pg 61 and pg 65

Smell of urine is very strong. The beds are used as urinals.

Pg 130 para june 2009 not 2010.

Pg 159 collusion of wardens reports. Which has been prepared for the purposes of this hearing.

NOTE to self: Not all defendants have copies of the statements.

Judge: Either the statements are read out and copies of the exhibits are provided or copies are provided over night. - a number of copies be provided tomorrow at 9am outside court.

PH: 2 morning I want o make 2 submissions:

3rd witness statement by BH and BT to be handed up
witness statement requested of Mr Syed Shah

J: Decide between Counsel.

10:30 start tomorrow.

10:15 for counsel.

charity sweet
- e-mail: