DSEi Arms Fair Protester Faces Trial

Disarmingman | 08.05.2012 10:06 | Anti-militarism | Oxford

Following postponment of January trial Chris Cole again faces the courts for criminal damage at DSEi arms fair

An arms trade protester arrested at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in September 2011 will go on trial at 10am on Thursday 10th May 2012 at Westminster Magistrates Court.

Chris Cole (48) from Oxford was arrested for spraying ‘DSEi Kills’ and ‘Stop the Arms Trade’ at the entrance to the arms fair as delegates queued to enter. He has pleaded ‘not guilty’ to charges of Criminal Damage arguing that he was acting to prevent the unlawful activity that was taking place at the arms fair.

The DSEi arms fair takes place at the ExCel Center in London’s Docklands every two years. Five countries attending the fair were listed by the UK Foreign Office as countries with "the most serious wide-ranging human rights concerns". These are Colombia, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Researchers and activists have repeated found equipment advertised for sale at the arms fair that are in breach of UK Export Control regulations. At the September 2011 exhibition both cluster munitions and illegal leg irons and ‘transport restraint’ equipment were being offered for sale. Oliver Sprague, Amnesty International’s Arms Programme Director, an acknowledged expert in international export control regulations will give evidence at the trial on behalf of the defence.

Chris Cole said “The DSEi arms fair is a key component of the international arms trade that is responsible for thousands of deaths each year and must be stopped. If the authorities refuse to act, individuals have a responsibility to prevent such unlawful activity."

A support vigil for Chris Cole will take place before the trial outside the court from 9.15am.

For more details contact Chris Cole on 07960 811437

Westminster Magistrates Court is at 181 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5BR

Disarmingman
Homepage: http://figtree101.wordpress.com/

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

Well HAS to face trial

08.05.2012 11:36

A "necessity" defense is a defense at trial. There are a great many technicalities about the facts that determine whether "necessity" justified the crime and facts are determined at trial. The prosecution can decide not to bring a case if it judges that the facts are so obvious that it would lose at trial so SOMETIMES there is no trial when the defense will be "necessity" (as opposed to "didn't do it").

Bear in mind that ONE of the facts needed to be established is "probable effectiveness of immediate results" from the action.

I can see thist argued at a trial but it is far from obvious that grafitti could have some immediate result stopping arms trading.

Understand? Doing something like this and getting tried is a political act. Another of the facts is "something was being done that had to be stopped" and IF the necessity defense is allowed to proceed the facts in the order it prefers gets a chance to present that argument. But a hostile judge might insist on the order of elements needed to establish "necessity" and then deny proceeding with a "necessity" defense when there is no ability to demonstrate "immediate effectiveness".

MDN

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

not sure on this one

08.05.2012 20:10

If what was being done at the arms fair was illegal and unlawful (and so should of been stopped), then the protestor should have phoned the police and reported it.

Did he do this?

If not, then it is very dubious to believe that he was trying to stop a crime.
Was it really unlawful? I doubt it, otherwise the arms fair wouldn't be allowed.

opat