Paul rebailed today till commital July 29th
In Brighton magistrates today Paul was rebailed till a committal hearing at the same place in July 29th. There a trial date will be announced. It will take place before a jury in Lewes Crown Court. It is likely that the trial will take place about six weeks after that date in around mid september.
The maximum penalty for a breach of a High Court interim injunction under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is five years imprisonment.
No political activist or demonstrator has ever been convicted of this offence to this day.
Only a handfull of prosecutions have ever been brought against demonstrators or protestors under an harassment act injunction breach.Pauls alleged breach was to film a 'protected person'. No violence or threat of violence was alleged to have been commited by Paul. He was acting as a legal observer on the day at a peaceful demonstartion and the men he filmed did not identify themselves as protected under the injunction.
Meanwhile a date for the full trial of the EDO injunction has been listed for 21st November and is expected to last two weeks. It will take place in the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London.
The evidence for 'harassment' against several named protestors and groups will there be examined properly for the first time. This is likely to be too late for Paul's case (who is not even named on the injunction) and there is a possibility that he could be convicted and imprisoned (again) for a breach of the interim injunction which is based on prima facia examination of the arguments in the case.
Demonstrations continue outside EDO MBM , home Farm Road, Moulsecoomb, Brighton.
Every Wednesday 4-6pm
In Brighton magistrates today Paul was rebailed till a committal hearing at the same place in July 29th. There a trial date will be announced. It will take place before a jury in Lewes Crown Court. It is likely that the trial will take place about six weeks after that date in around mid september.
The maximum penalty for a breach of a High Court interim injunction under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is five years imprisonment.
No political activist or demonstrator has ever been convicted of this offence to this day.
Only a handfull of prosecutions have ever been brought against demonstrators or protestors under an harassment act injunction breach.Pauls alleged breach was to film a 'protected person'. No violence or threat of violence was alleged to have been commited by Paul. He was acting as a legal observer on the day at a peaceful demonstartion and the men he filmed did not identify themselves as protected under the injunction.
Meanwhile a date for the full trial of the EDO injunction has been listed for 21st November and is expected to last two weeks. It will take place in the High Court, Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London.
The evidence for 'harassment' against several named protestors and groups will there be examined properly for the first time. This is likely to be too late for Paul's case (who is not even named on the injunction) and there is a possibility that he could be convicted and imprisoned (again) for a breach of the interim injunction which is based on prima facia examination of the arguments in the case.
Demonstrations continue outside EDO MBM , home Farm Road, Moulsecoomb, Brighton.
Every Wednesday 4-6pm
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
EDO business is falling
23.06.2005 18:14
Amazing what a few smashniks outside a factory in Moulsecoomb, Brighton can do.
EDO was once one of the top ten fastest growing companies in america.
Not anymore.
edowatch
EDO stock affected?
23.06.2005 18:35
p!r
Stockwatch
25.06.2005 12:01
This is an arms company, protests are ten a penny to them
Grow up
We're so big and clever
One case...
27.06.2005 14:35
This is not directly the same but I would say that in this case, just having a video camera does not constitute intimidation, but the acts of the person with the camera must be intimidating.
The argument that 'he wouldn't know what was going to happen with the footage' and therefore was intimidated does not wash. Unless that person is of a particularly weak mental state, or has been pre-briefed to be scared to death of protesters then they should not, using history as our guide, he should not be intimidated by a camera. Annoyed, yes, pissed of, possibly. Not intimidated...
fredrico
e-mail:
musteatvegan@yahoo.co.uk