Thursday, 19 February, 2004
Police 'abused power' during demo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/3502199.stm
Protesters have won their High Court battle over a police decision to detain them on their way to RAF Fairford for an anti-war demonstration.
Lawyers for half the 120 passengers, stopped from protesting last March, accused Gloucestershire Police of acting unlawfully.
Three coaches were stopped, searched and escorted back to London.
The court ruled that police abused common law when they detained the demonstrators for more than two hours.
Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison, sitting in London, ruled that the protesters' detention and forced return could also not be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the court did back the police's contention that they were entitled - and obliged - to take preventative action as they "reasonably and honestly" believed that breaches of the peace would have occurred if the coaches reached Fairford.
In its judgement, the court also said there "...may be circumstances in which individual discrimination amongst a large numbers of uncooperative people may be impractical" and that this was such a case.
John Halford, solicitor for the protesters, told BBC News 24: "The court made it clear that we won on the main issues and awarded all of our costs against the police.
Body armour
"The main issue was unlawful detention and whether it was right to escort 120 protesters back to London and forcibly keeping them on the coach while they did so.
"We think what the police are required to do in a situation like this is assess every individual separately."
There is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement
Items removed by police from the coaches included masks, white overalls, scissors, five shields and body armour.
The protesters were on their way to join a demonstration against the war in Iraq when they were detained for more than two hours.
They were then escorted back to London without stopping in a two and a half hour journey with no toilet facilities on the buses.
The circumstance and length of this detention were ruled by the court to be "wholly disproportionate".
'No one hurt'
A statement by Gloucestershire Police read: "The court has made it clear that the operational commander on the ground was lawfully entitled to turn those coaches away. In fact, it was his duty to do so.
"While the court has decided that it was wrong for the police to escort those coaches back, they made it clear that there was no basis whatsoever for doubting the Operational Commander's intentions or motives in doing so. He was acting in entirely good faith.
"In fact, there is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement.
"The fact that no one was hurt that day and that a lawful protest was able to take place with the cooperation of the local community and without disruption to military operations demonstrates that this operation was entirely successful."
Both the police and protesters have been given leave to appeal.
Mr Halford said protesters planned to appeal against the court's ruling that two articles of human rights law had not been breached.
-------------------------
Peace activists detention was unlawful
19 February 2004
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9242022
Protesters today won their High Court battle over a police decision to detain three coachloads of peace activists on their way to a demonstration against the war on Iraq.
The ruling was a victory for about 60 of the 120 passengers. They took legal action after being prevented from attending the vigil at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire in March last year.
They accused Gloucestershire Police of acting unlawfully.
Their lawyers had argued the "unjustified" police action amounted to an abuse of power.
Today Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison, sitting in London, ruled that their detention and forced return to London could not be justified under both common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the protesters failed to gain a ruling that they should have been allowed to attend the demonstration.
Both judges agreed that, even though their subsequent detention was unlawful, the police had been entitled to stop them reaching Fairford because of fears of a breach of the peace.
Three coaches from London were intercepted in a lay-by in Lechlade at 12.50pm, searched and items were seized.
At 2.15pm, the decision was taken to return the coaches to London non-stop under police escort, because of the view taken about preventing violence by hard-core demonstrators.
Michael Fordham, appearing for demonstrator Jane Laporte, from Woodlands Park Road, Tottenham, London N15, contended that both the action of turning away and of forcible return were unlawful.
Lord Justice May said the police were entitled to take preventive measures to avoid breaches of the peace.
It had been impractical for officers to deal with a large number of "unco-operative" people on an individual basis in the lay-by.
The judge said: "I do not consider that the police action in preventing the coaches from proceeding to Fairford was unlawful."
But the detention of the passengers while they were escorted back to London was a breach of their right to liberty under Article 5 of the human rights convention.
Persons detained to prevent a breach of the peace should be released unconditionally "as soon as the immediate apprehension of breach of the peace is past."
Detention beyond that point "will not be justified unless there is an arrest followed by bringing the person arrested before a magistrate".
How long transitory detention without arrest could lawfully last depended on the facts of the individual case - "but it cannot be for long", ruled the judge.
Ms Laporte's enforced return to London on the coach was not lawful because "there was no immediately apprehended breach of the peace by her sufficient to justify even transitory detention".
The judge added: "Detention on the coach for two and a half hours went far beyond anything which could conceivably constitute transitory detention such as I have described."
The "circumstances and length of detention on the coach were wholly disproportionate to the apprehended breach of the peace."
The judge said he appreciated the court's ruling "may cause difficulties for the police in circumstances such as those at Fairford on March 22 20003".
Declaring that the detention on the coaches was not lawful, he ruled that Ms Laporte was entitled to claim damages. Mr Justice Harrison agreed.
Because of the importance of the issues raised, both the demonstrators and the police were given permission to appeal against those parts of today's ruling which went against them.
The inquiry as to how much damages the demonstrators should receive was adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal.
During the recent High Court hearing, Michael Fordham said that the operation at Fairford, which was used by American B-52 bombers, was the largest and most complex police operation ever undertaken by Gloucestershire Police.
The protesters were utterly opposed to the US-led military assault on Iraq and wished to exercise their deeply-held beliefs through peaceful protest.
Mr Fordham said that the police regarded their operation as a great success in achieving their strategic objectives of preventing violence and facilitating peaceful protest.
Lawyers for Gloucestershire Police argued that their officers were not only entitled to take the action they did - they were obliged to.
----------------------
Police 'abused power' during demo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/3502199.stm Protesters have won their High Court battle over a police decision to detain them on their way to RAF Fairford for an anti-war demonstration.
Lawyers for half the 120 passengers, stopped from protesting last March, accused Gloucestershire Police of acting unlawfully.
Three coaches were stopped, searched and escorted back to London.
The court ruled that police abused common law when they detained the demonstrators for more than two hours.
Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison, sitting in London, ruled that the protesters' detention and forced return could also not be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the court did back the police's contention that they were entitled - and obliged - to take preventative action as they "reasonably and honestly" believed that breaches of the peace would have occurred if the coaches reached Fairford.
In its judgement, the court also said there "...may be circumstances in which individual discrimination amongst a large numbers of uncooperative people may be impractical" and that this was such a case.
John Halford, solicitor for the protesters, told BBC News 24: "The court made it clear that we won on the main issues and awarded all of our costs against the police.
Body armour
"The main issue was unlawful detention and whether it was right to escort 120 protesters back to London and forcibly keeping them on the coach while they did so.
"We think what the police are required to do in a situation like this is assess every individual separately."
There is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement
Items removed by police from the coaches included masks, white overalls, scissors, five shields and body armour.
The protesters were on their way to join a demonstration against the war in Iraq when they were detained for more than two hours.
They were then escorted back to London without stopping in a two and a half hour journey with no toilet facilities on the buses.
The circumstance and length of this detention were ruled by the court to be "wholly disproportionate".
'No one hurt'
A statement by Gloucestershire Police read: "The court has made it clear that the operational commander on the ground was lawfully entitled to turn those coaches away. In fact, it was his duty to do so.
"While the court has decided that it was wrong for the police to escort those coaches back, they made it clear that there was no basis whatsoever for doubting the Operational Commander's intentions or motives in doing so. He was acting in entirely good faith.
"In fact, there is no word of criticism whatsoever in the judgement.
"The fact that no one was hurt that day and that a lawful protest was able to take place with the cooperation of the local community and without disruption to military operations demonstrates that this operation was entirely successful."
Both the police and protesters have been given leave to appeal.
Mr Halford said protesters planned to appeal against the court's ruling that two articles of human rights law had not been breached.
-------------------------
Peace activists detention was unlawful
19 February 2004
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9242022 Protesters today won their High Court battle over a police decision to detain three coachloads of peace activists on their way to a demonstration against the war on Iraq.
The ruling was a victory for about 60 of the 120 passengers. They took legal action after being prevented from attending the vigil at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire in March last year.
They accused Gloucestershire Police of acting unlawfully.
Their lawyers had argued the "unjustified" police action amounted to an abuse of power.
Today Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison, sitting in London, ruled that their detention and forced return to London could not be justified under both common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the protesters failed to gain a ruling that they should have been allowed to attend the demonstration.
Both judges agreed that, even though their subsequent detention was unlawful, the police had been entitled to stop them reaching Fairford because of fears of a breach of the peace.
Three coaches from London were intercepted in a lay-by in Lechlade at 12.50pm, searched and items were seized.
At 2.15pm, the decision was taken to return the coaches to London non-stop under police escort, because of the view taken about preventing violence by hard-core demonstrators.
Michael Fordham, appearing for demonstrator Jane Laporte, from Woodlands Park Road, Tottenham, London N15, contended that both the action of turning away and of forcible return were unlawful.
Lord Justice May said the police were entitled to take preventive measures to avoid breaches of the peace.
It had been impractical for officers to deal with a large number of "unco-operative" people on an individual basis in the lay-by.
The judge said: "I do not consider that the police action in preventing the coaches from proceeding to Fairford was unlawful."
But the detention of the passengers while they were escorted back to London was a breach of their right to liberty under Article 5 of the human rights convention.
Persons detained to prevent a breach of the peace should be released unconditionally "as soon as the immediate apprehension of breach of the peace is past."
Detention beyond that point "will not be justified unless there is an arrest followed by bringing the person arrested before a magistrate".
How long transitory detention without arrest could lawfully last depended on the facts of the individual case - "but it cannot be for long", ruled the judge.
Ms Laporte's enforced return to London on the coach was not lawful because "there was no immediately apprehended breach of the peace by her sufficient to justify even transitory detention".
The judge added: "Detention on the coach for two and a half hours went far beyond anything which could conceivably constitute transitory detention such as I have described."
The "circumstances and length of detention on the coach were wholly disproportionate to the apprehended breach of the peace."
The judge said he appreciated the court's ruling "may cause difficulties for the police in circumstances such as those at Fairford on March 22 20003".
Declaring that the detention on the coaches was not lawful, he ruled that Ms Laporte was entitled to claim damages. Mr Justice Harrison agreed.
Because of the importance of the issues raised, both the demonstrators and the police were given permission to appeal against those parts of today's ruling which went against them.
The inquiry as to how much damages the demonstrators should receive was adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal.
During the recent High Court hearing, Michael Fordham said that the operation at Fairford, which was used by American B-52 bombers, was the largest and most complex police operation ever undertaken by Gloucestershire Police.
The protesters were utterly opposed to the US-led military assault on Iraq and wished to exercise their deeply-held beliefs through peaceful protest.
Mr Fordham said that the police regarded their operation as a great success in achieving their strategic objectives of preventing violence and facilitating peaceful protest.
Lawyers for Gloucestershire Police argued that their officers were not only entitled to take the action they did - they were obliged to.
----------------------
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
'How we were kept on coach'
19.02.2004 23:47
Jesse Schust, 32, who works in IT in London, was one of the anti-war protesters detained on a coach by police, which High Court judges ruled on Thursday was an abuse of the law.
I was on the coach as a volunteer legal observer, as somebody who has legal knowledge and to watch for the police abusing the rights of the public.
I knew this was probably the biggest demo ever at Fairford and now bombers were flying to Iraq 24 hours a day I thought the policing would be different.
I brought a notepad, a camera and plenty of legal notes so I knew what the laws were.
My friend had to urinate into a sandwich box in the foot well.
Jesse Schust
When I showed up there was about 120 - 140 people waiting for the coaches at Euston.
When we got about 10 miles outside Fairford the police were following us and leading us along, then they pulled us over so they could search the coaches.
I didn't think it was a big deal and we all cooperated and got off the bus in an orderly way as the police requested.
I was quite sympathetic towards the police, I thought they were there just to move the coaches, slow them down and discourage protesters from doing things, search for weapons - I thought that was reasonable in a non-violent protest.
I did think we weren't going to get to the protest on time. Little did I know we wouldn't get there at all.
The search took about one hour and 20 minutes. I have never been searched before but it was a superficial kind of search and I didn't have anything taken.
I was really surprised by some of the stuff taken - humorous things like frisbees and batteries for personal stereos.
A few people left, they just decided they had to go to the protest and hitch hiked.
The rest of us assumed we would get there faster on the coaches but when we got back on a policeman boarded the coach and said something very quietly that only the people at the front could hear.
He told us that due to items seized it was felt there would be a breach of the peace if we were allowed onto Fairford so we were going to be sent back to London.
We ended up putting signs on the windows saying let us stop for toilets as there were no toilets on board
Jesse Schust
We drove off and the police ran holding the doors till the coaches were up to speed, we were effectively imprisoned at that point with no means of contact with the police.
We ended up putting signs on the windows saying let us stop for toilets as there were no toilets on board, my friend had to urinate into a sandwich box in the foot well.
The journey took two and a half hours and people were trying to figure out what would happen to us when we got to London, we became very frightened and when we stopped in traffic some people fled the coaches.
I stayed on till Euston to see the whole thing and make sure everyone was safe.
The police escort had remained until we got back to Euston then they drove off.
Me and my friend were too traumatised to go and watch the big anti-war demo in London and sat in a cafe trying to understand how that sort of thing took place.
It took me quite a while to feel confident to go on a hired coach, at the end of the summer I did travel on one and found I was getting nervous.
It was an unfortunate situation and a bad precedent to allow to go unchallenged.
It was disappointing and really hurt not to be able to go and make my protest.
bbc news
Homepage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/3503855.stm
More coverage
20.02.2004 17:02
Protesters were held unlawfully, court rules
Guardian, UK
Anti-war protesters are to claim thousands of pounds in damages after a high court
ruling yesterday that the Gloucestershire police unlawfully detained them on ...
Detention of peace activists is ruled unlawful
Telegraph.co.uk, UK
By Nic Fleming. Peace protesters yesterday won a landmark ruling that
police acted unlawfully by forcing them to return home as they ...
Detention of 120 protesters 'illegal'
Gulf Daily News, Bahrain
British police face a bill of some £500,000 (BD363,500) after a court ruled yesterday
that they had acted unlawfully in stopping protesters from attending a ...
Peace activists were unlawfully detained
Independent, UK
By Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter. Police unlawfully detained a party
of anti-Iraq war activists when they escorted their coaches back ...
Police rapped for detaining war protesters
Reuters, UK
By Michelle Green. LONDON (Reuters) - Police face a bill of nearly
half a million pounds after a court ruled they acted unlawfully ...
Anti-war activist wins police abuse case
Telegraph.co.uk, UK - 19 Feb 2004
Dozens of peace activists are to claim thousands of pounds in damages from the
police after the High Court ruled that they were unlawfully detained and ...
Peace Activists to Seek Damages after Court Ruling
The Scotsman, UK - 19 Feb 2004
By John Aston and Jan Colley, PA News.
Peace activists are to claim
thousands of pounds in damages after the High Court ruled today ...
mhor
The full listing of press coverage/reports - mainly corporate media
20.02.2004 23:28
---------
Guardian (UK Latest) - (19 February 2004)
Peace activists' detention unlawful
Reuters (via UK Yahoo!) - (19 February 2004)
Police rapped for detaining war protesters.
Evening Standard/ThisIsLondon.co.uk - (19 February 2004)
Peace activists' detention unlawful
BBC NEWS - (19 February 2004)
Police 'abused power' during demo
Telegraph - (19 February 2004)
Anti-war activist wins police abuse case
The Times - (19 February 2004)
Police detained Iraq protesters unlawfully
BBC NEWS - (19 February 2004)
'How we were kept on coach'
ITV News - (19 February 2004)
Peace activists win legal battle
Guardian (Special Reports) - (19 February 2004)
Detained protesters win legal battle
Gloucestershire Constabulary (Press Release) - (19 February 2004)
RAF Fairford Judicial Review
The Scotsman - (19 February 2004)
Peace Activists to Seek Damages after Court Ruling - by John Aston and Jan Colley, PA News
Indymedia Report - (19 February 2004)
Anti-War protesters win landmark ruling in Human Rights case
Independent - (20 February 2004)
Peace activists were unlawfully detained - by Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter
Guardian - (20 February 2004)
Protesters were held unlawfully, court rules - Rebecca Allison
Telegraph - (20 February 2004)
Police detention of peace activists is ruled unlawful - by Nic Fleming
The Times - (20 February 2004)
Police wrong to detain activists, say judges - by Michael Evans, Defence Editor
Daily Mirror - (20 February 2004)
Peaceniks beat cops
(link not available with online edition)
Daily Express - (20 February 2004)
Peace demo victory
Daily Mail - (20 February 2004)
£360,000 bill facing police over peaceniks - by Tahira Yaqoob
(link not available - no online edition)
ic Scotland - (20 February 2004)
Peace activists' detention unlawful
The Scotsman - (20 February 2004)
Peace activists' damages claim
Gulf Daily News - The voice of Bahrain - (20 February 2004)
Detention of 120 protesters 'illegal'
Morning Star - (20 February 2004)
Campaigners celebrate win
Metro - London
(title not known)
Ham & High - (20 February 2004)
War Protestors in court victory
Camden New Journal - (20 February 2004)
Anti-war protester awaits ruling
Fairford Coach Action
e-mail:
press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
Homepage:
http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk