trainee
Coal mine blockade restraining orders quashed | 05.12.2010 12:22
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".
Coal mine blockade restraining orders quashed
Original article on IMC Bristol:
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/702370