JUDGEMENT: VICTORY ON ILLEGAL DETENTION
Today the court gave a landmark ruling that the police had unlawfully breached the Human Rights of anti-war protesters who were detained and prevented from attending a protest at RAF Fairford last March. The court firmly ruled the detention and forced return to London could not be justified and The right not to be arbitrarily detained (article 5 of Human rights convention) had been breached.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice May commented "For practical purposes none of the articles seized were to be regarded as offensive. Two pairs of scissors would not make much of an impression on the fences of the Air base.
However the court went on to rule that the police were acting lawfully in turning the protesters away from the demonstration, a conclusion Mr Halford (solicitor from Bindmans and Partners) described as inconsistent and unsatisfactory. He said:
"It can not be right for police to stifle protest by preventing attendance at a demonstration, simply on the grounds that some who might attend might cause trouble. That would allow the police to prevent any - and in fact every - demonstration taking place."
Leave for appeal has been granted to both sides.
Read Full Judicial Review Case Judgement Text:
Laporte, R v Gloucestershire Constabulary & Ors [2004] EWHC 253
Press Release text from Bindman and Partners
Pictures Outside Court | Video (14Mb .wmv) | Corporate Media Coverage
Previous Reports from Judicial Review Hearing:
Court Report (15/1) | Video of Protest Outside Royal Courts (15/1) | Comments | Corporate Media Reports (15/1)
See Press Release (15/1)
Fairford Coach Campaign Website | Archive Indymedia Coverage | Archive Video Report
Today the court gave a landmark ruling that the police had unlawfully breached the Human Rights of anti-war protesters who were detained and prevented from attending a protest at RAF Fairford last March. The court firmly ruled the detention and forced return to London could not be justified and The right not to be arbitrarily detained (article 5 of Human rights convention) had been breached.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice May commented "For practical purposes none of the articles seized were to be regarded as offensive. Two pairs of scissors would not make much of an impression on the fences of the Air base.
However the court went on to rule that the police were acting lawfully in turning the protesters away from the demonstration, a conclusion Mr Halford (solicitor from Bindmans and Partners) described as inconsistent and unsatisfactory. He said:
"It can not be right for police to stifle protest by preventing attendance at a demonstration, simply on the grounds that some who might attend might cause trouble. That would allow the police to prevent any - and in fact every - demonstration taking place."
Leave for appeal has been granted to both sides.
Read Full Judicial Review Case Judgement Text:
Laporte, R v Gloucestershire Constabulary & Ors [2004] EWHC 253
Press Release text from Bindman and Partners
Pictures Outside Court | Video (14Mb .wmv) | Corporate Media Coverage
Previous Reports from Judicial Review Hearing:
Court Report (15/1) | Video of Protest Outside Royal Courts (15/1) | Comments | Corporate Media Reports (15/1)
See Press Release (15/1)
Fairford Coach Campaign Website | Archive Indymedia Coverage | Archive Video Report
Background: Last March around 120 anti-war campaigners were 'coachnapped'. They were stopped and searched for almost two hours on their way to demonstration at RAF Fairford, then forcibly returned to London under police escort (pics). As the protestors put signs in the coach windows saying "Help We've Been Kidnapped" "Call the Media" and "Denied The Right To Protest The War", the police closed the motorway behind the coaches while police motorcycle outriders blocked motorway exits (see old report).
The campaigners claimed the police overstepped their powers and furthermore that they breached articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary detention, the freedom of speech and assembly, and respect for physical and psychological integrity.
Last month the Judicial Review hearing saw police statements revealing that at 10.45am an order was issued by Chief Superintendent Lambert to stop and search the coaches including instructions for the coaches to be turned around and escorted non-stop back to London if any 'dangerous items' or items likely to be used to conceal identity were found. Michael Fordham acting on behalf of the protestors had said the police were within their powers to seize certain items, and that they even possibly had the right to detain certain individuals under public order and common laws, but they overstepped the law and infringed both common law and human rights law, by the blanket nature of their action (despite JIC intelligence notes showing that the police were aware that the coach passengers were made up of individuals and members of various groups) and the way evidence was used in an attempt to justify this.
The campaigners claimed the police overstepped their powers and furthermore that they breached articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom from arbitrary detention, the freedom of speech and assembly, and respect for physical and psychological integrity.
Last month the Judicial Review hearing saw police statements revealing that at 10.45am an order was issued by Chief Superintendent Lambert to stop and search the coaches including instructions for the coaches to be turned around and escorted non-stop back to London if any 'dangerous items' or items likely to be used to conceal identity were found. Michael Fordham acting on behalf of the protestors had said the police were within their powers to seize certain items, and that they even possibly had the right to detain certain individuals under public order and common laws, but they overstepped the law and infringed both common law and human rights law, by the blanket nature of their action (despite JIC intelligence notes showing that the police were aware that the coach passengers were made up of individuals and members of various groups) and the way evidence was used in an attempt to justify this.
Comments
Hide the following comment
Police State??
20.02.2004 09:08
In other words we really are living in a Police State now.
steve