Skip to content or view screen version

Brighton arms trade corruption challenged in court

Andrew Beckett | 29.07.2012 10:07 | Smash EDO | Afghanistan | Anti-militarism | Palestine | South Coast | World

Smash EDO Press Release

4:PM Friday 27 July 2012

Contact: Andrew Beckett or Sam Hayward - 07526557436

 smashedopress@riseup.net

Smash EDO website:  http://www.smashedo.org.uk

CASE NAME: R-v-Nero and Pidwell

VENUE: Brighton Magistrates Court, Edward Street, Brighton

TIME:10:am

DATE: 31 July 2012 – 2 August 2012

On 31 July 2012, two anti-war activists will face charges of Aggravated Trespass in Brighton Magistrates Court. In their defence they will present evidence of the unlawful business activities of
Brighton arms company EDO MBM Technology Ltd, a subsidiary of US arms maker ITT Exelis Inc. a $1.7billion multinational arms, security, and intelligence technology company.

Jessica Nero and Gavin Pidwell were arrested on 26 April 2011 after blocking the firm's factory gates in protest at its ongoing manufacture of weapons system umbilical connectors being supplied for use on the new Israeli F-35 aircraft, as well as US F-16, and A-10 fighter jets, all of which carry illegal cluster bombs as part of their arsenals.

Section 2 (2) of The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010 makes it an offence for any British person or resident to assist the use of cluster bombs.

The Managing Director of EDO MBM, Paul Hills will be a prosecution witness on the first day of the trial and is expected to be cross-examined on the lawfulness of his business by the defendants legal team.

Smash EDO spokesperson Andrew Becket commented: 'There is clear documentary evidence in this case that EDO MBM have engaged in unlawful activities- including assistance in the use of US cluster bombs and the supply of military equipment for Israeli war planes contrary to UK
domestic law.'

The case is set to last to last 3 days.

The defendants are represented by Teresa Blades of Kellys Solicitors, Brighton.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF CORPORATE CRIME AT EDO AND ITT

EDO MBM is a UK subsidiary of US arms maker ITT Exelis Inc. ITT is a $1.7billion multinational arms company with a notorious twentieth-century history of support for the fascist regimes in Spain,
Germany, and Chile.

More recently ITT pled guilty in 2007 to illegal exports and cover-up of secret military technology to China over a 25 year period. As part of a plea agreement with the US Department of Justice, ITT paid $100million in fines, which at the time was one of the largest criminal fines for breaches of arms export controls in paid in US history.

EDO MBM's previous parent company EDO Corp pled guilty 2003 to illegal arms exports and agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine to US authorities.

Both corporations were placed under increased auditing and compliance regimes as a result of their convictions.

From 1983 to 2000 EDO MBM was owned by the British Morgan Crucible PLC, under the direction its then CEO Ian Norris. Ian Norris was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice in December 2010 after destroying company documents related to a corporate fraud investigation into Morgan Crucible in the same period that EDO MBM was owned by the conglomerate. After being extradited to the US, Ian Norris was tried, convicted sentenced to 18 months in a US prison.

In June 2010 the crown court acquitted seven Smash EDO activists of £180,000 damage to the factory after a defence of 'lawful excuse' was accepted by the jury on grounds that it was reasonable to believe EDO MBM were engaged in illegal arms exports to the Israel Air Force of arming units used to commit war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009.

Smash EDO spokesperson Andrew Beckett said, 'EDO MBM have failed to learn anything from their parent firms corrupt histories or their own exposure in the crown court in 2010 as liars. They continue to act illegally,and unethically with apparent impunity. Like their bosses before them, the directors of EDO MBM have sought to cover up these crimes with lies and misrepresentations in numerous judicial proceedings.'

'Sussex Police have done nothing to stop these acts, in fact by omitting to act they have effectively supported them. It's time to bring this sordid tale of police collusion with arms dealer corruption to an end'.

ENDS

Contact: Andrew Beckett or Sam Hayward - 07526557436

 smashedopress@riseup.net

Smash EDO website:  http://www.smashedo.org.uk

Andrew Beckett
- e-mail: smashedopress@riseup.net
- Homepage: www.smashedo.org.uk

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

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.

Maybe they will be able to do this

29.07.2012 10:50

"In their defence they will present evidence of the unlawful business activities of
Brighton arms company EDO MBM Technology Ltd, a subsidiary of US arms maker ITT Exelis Inc. a $1.7billion multinational arms, security, and intelligence technology company.

Jessica Nero and Gavin Pidwell were arrested on 26 April 2011 after blocking the firm's factory gates in protest at its ongoing manufacture of weapons system umbilical connectors being supplied for use on the new Israeli F-35 aircraft, as well as US F-16, and A-10 fighter jets, all of which carry illegal cluster bombs as part of their arsenals."

A "necessity" defense has several aspects, ONE of which is that the activity you are trying to prevent is illegal. The action must ALSO be immediate, effective, and you lack effective alternatives, etc. This allows the judge to be "friendly" or "unfriendly" to your necessity defense" when its main purpose is as a propoganda ploy. Where you can present evidence of the "illegal" part but will fail one of the other tests. When the defense claims "necessity" the hudge can allow the defense to choose which aspects of a necessity defense to start with or can insist on starting with some specific aspect (and when that fails, to block presentation of other aspects).

If all this plant does is create parts for these planes that CAN drop cluster bombs but parts not specifically related to cluster bombs the judge in this case could disallow evidence about cluster bombs.

MDN


Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments