On Wednesday 1st December the Court of Appeal in London lifted restraining orders off 12 people who blockaded the Ffos y Fran coal mine in April 2010. Miller Argent have for years been operating the noisy, polluting mine, described by the Crown Prosecution Service as "a highly controversial project", despite the strong objection of the local community, some of who live within 40 metres of the mine and have to suffer black rain and noisy machinery at antisocial hours. The full court transcripts aren't available yet but here are just some of the CPS arguments that failed to convince the judges. Be warned - the following article is written in incredibly boring legalese....
1) The CPS attempted to invoke 'that scary bit' of the SOCPA legislation, that "a person must not pursue a course of conduct by which he intends to persuade any person (i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or (ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do". At the time of the SOCPA, amidst public outrage, we were assured that this would only be used to combat terrorism.

2) The CPS attempted to construct the lack of clarity in the Protection From Harassment Act as "deliberate" because "the behaviour intended to be guarded against is potentially very wide-ranging" - according to the CPS anything that could be "troubling and worrying" is harassment. The CPS furthermore argued that punishing the 12 by the letter of the law would not create sufficient deterrent to reoffend.

3) In order to prove a "course of conduct" the CPS claimed that the 12 "may well have been involved" in previous protests against Ffos y Fran, Aberthaw Power Station and National Rail(?!) where protesters' identities were unknown. They however did not present any examples of these protests or any evidence that these protests were in any way worthy of criticism. If a protester's identity is known it is because they weren't arrested, at which point the event has nothing to do with the CPS. Yet the CPS nonetheless inferred that the uncited protests needed to be tackled in some legal sense, claiming that the mine is repeatedly "targeted" and is constantly "at risk from protesters". So much for rhetoric about protest being a proud part of our heritage - the CPS seems convinced protest is something to be tackled with criminal law. In fact the stated intention of the CPS was to "deter protesters who have shown such persistence and determination in relation to a cause which they continue to show extreme passion towards".