SMASH EDO
PRESS RELEASE
http://www.smashedo.org.uk
---------------------------------------------
DATE: Saturday November 5th 2005.
EMBARGO. For Immediate Release
CONTACT: Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson on
Phone: 07875 708873
Email:
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------
ATTORNEY GENERAL TORPEDOES WAR CRIMES DEFENCE IN HIGH COURT; PROTESTERS DEFIANT
On Wednesday the Attorney General intervened in an injunction trial at the High Court where protesters were seeking to bring up war crimes in Iraq and Palestine as part of their defence. Yesterday Judge Wallace glossed over evidence of war crimes in Iraq and Palestine stating that a ruling on whether crimes had been committed was unnecessary.
The defendants argued that EDO MBM, a Brighton arms manufacturer was guilty of offences under the ICC Act through its supply of weapons to conflicts in Iraq and Palestine.
The Attorney Generals barrister argued that no war crimes had been commited. He also argued for a more stringent interpretation of the already draconian Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which is being used to impose a collective punishment on all protesters who wish to demonstrate outside the Brighton arms factory. The Attorney General's interpretation was rejected by Judge Wallace.
Andrew Beckett, press spokesman for Smash EDO, said 'the ruling was a result of the interevention of the Attorney General, it was a clear attempt to stifle debate in the courts about war crimes committed by the UK government in Iraq. However, the evidence of war crimes will still be used in the court case and we will continue to protest at EDO MBM until they cease supplying weapons to be used against civilians'
Copies of the judgement of Judge Wallace are available on request.
==========================================
Notes for Journalists
Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.
The injunction referred to was served under the 1997
Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to
protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its
kind directed at activists outside of the animal
rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction
but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone
deemed to be a protestor.
Initially EDO/MBM requested a large "exclusion zone"
comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.
They and Sussex police also wanted to limit
demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than
ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused
to impose these conditions at the initial hearing of
an interim injunction, which was put in place in the
period before the full trial to be heard at the High
court in London from November 21st.
In his summing up he said, "The right to freedom of
___expression is jealously guarded in English law" and
consequently refused to impose the requested limits on
size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.
He also said that he doubted that protesters were
'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.
EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of
huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was
recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100
fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release
mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst
others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon's
Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the
"Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq.
EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia over being named as "warmongers".
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental
in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997
from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a
corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They
have pioneered to use of injunctions to create large
"exclusion zones". They have secured numerous
injunctions against anti-vivisection and anti-GM
protestors.
Campaign against EDO MBM. People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade unionists, academics and students. The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp. It's avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their complicity in war crimes and to remove them from Brighton
PRESS RELEASE
http://www.smashedo.org.uk ---------------------------------------------
DATE: Saturday November 5th 2005.
EMBARGO. For Immediate Release
CONTACT: Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson on
Phone: 07875 708873
Email:
smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk -------------------------------------------------
ATTORNEY GENERAL TORPEDOES WAR CRIMES DEFENCE IN HIGH COURT; PROTESTERS DEFIANT
On Wednesday the Attorney General intervened in an injunction trial at the High Court where protesters were seeking to bring up war crimes in Iraq and Palestine as part of their defence. Yesterday Judge Wallace glossed over evidence of war crimes in Iraq and Palestine stating that a ruling on whether crimes had been committed was unnecessary.
The defendants argued that EDO MBM, a Brighton arms manufacturer was guilty of offences under the ICC Act through its supply of weapons to conflicts in Iraq and Palestine.
The Attorney Generals barrister argued that no war crimes had been commited. He also argued for a more stringent interpretation of the already draconian Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which is being used to impose a collective punishment on all protesters who wish to demonstrate outside the Brighton arms factory. The Attorney General's interpretation was rejected by Judge Wallace.
Andrew Beckett, press spokesman for Smash EDO, said 'the ruling was a result of the interevention of the Attorney General, it was a clear attempt to stifle debate in the courts about war crimes committed by the UK government in Iraq. However, the evidence of war crimes will still be used in the court case and we will continue to protest at EDO MBM until they cease supplying weapons to be used against civilians'
Copies of the judgement of Judge Wallace are available on request.
==========================================
Notes for Journalists
Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.
The injunction referred to was served under the 1997
Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to
protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its
kind directed at activists outside of the animal
rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction
but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone
deemed to be a protestor.
Initially EDO/MBM requested a large "exclusion zone"
comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.
They and Sussex police also wanted to limit
demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than
ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused
to impose these conditions at the initial hearing of
an interim injunction, which was put in place in the
period before the full trial to be heard at the High
court in London from November 21st.
In his summing up he said, "The right to freedom of
___expression is jealously guarded in English law" and
consequently refused to impose the requested limits on
size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.
He also said that he doubted that protesters were
'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.
EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of
huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was
recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100
fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release
mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst
others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon's
Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the
"Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq.
EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia over being named as "warmongers".
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental
in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997
from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a
corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They
have pioneered to use of injunctions to create large
"exclusion zones". They have secured numerous
injunctions against anti-vivisection and anti-GM
protestors.
Campaign against EDO MBM. People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade unionists, academics and students. The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp. It's avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their complicity in war crimes and to remove them from Brighton
Comments
Hide the following comment
What Happened in Court
11.11.2005 18:27
The prelim trial judge on nov 1-3 ruled that it could NOT be argued, that if the defendants are found to have been part of a course of conduct amounting to
harassment
(which the main trial will decide)that we were preventing crime. This was
down to the attorny general counsel making a complex legal argument and
not that of EDOs lawyer TLC who is a crappy lawyer.
The defendants won and lost on several points of law. In particular they lost on the
point that crime could be prevented by a long term campaign although this
could be appealed. The judge said that tha law had to limit actions to
prevent crimes to immediate circumstances and despite what might have
happened in the past this was not reasonable as an excuse to harass
someone for what they might do in the future.He made the point that the
rehabilitation of offenders act would be compromised by such a ruling. He
did allow however that theoretically you can harass a secondary offender
to a crime to stop them aiding and abetting a principle offender even if
the secondary offender is not aware a crime is taking place that they are
aiding or abetting, so EDO can't argue that they didn't know what their
product does because that doesnt matter if there is evidence that it is
about to be used in a crime.
lots of the witness statements from palestine were read out and the judge
took away a reading list that he had suggested for him, so the evidence of
war crimes went in and the judge heard it even if the press didnt turn up
to hear it.
a lots of paralels were drawn with other long term campaigns such as that
against apartheid south africa-that for womens rights and that against fox
hunting.
the contradiction between the AG and TLCs claim that direct
action was undemocratic 'a mask for anarchy' and their reliance on the
royal prerogative to protect the govt from a review of the legality of the
war. The royal prerogative, based on mediaval monarchic privilege is about
as undemocratic as you can get.
Although the defendants lost the prevention of crime point they did win the defence of
acting reasonably in the circumstances which are our belief and evidence
of war crimes taking place in iraq and palestine so they will still be able
to
use this evidence in the main trial to back up how reasonbale they are being.
The AG attempted to suggest they were all imagining things and this was a
totally subjective conclusion we had made akin to that of a schitzoprenic
imagining things that were not actually there, but the judge having seen
the evidence decided that there was a chance they were acting reasonbaly but
he could not rule yes or no because that had to be decided on the facts of
the case in the main trial.
There was a lot more and the judgement should be available soon. It could
be posted on this list. One highlight for me was having the judge compare
david jones the director of EDO to a nazi war criminal from the zyclon b
case in 1948(?). TLC tried to say that Jones was like the worker who was
aquitted because he was not aware where the gas was going and was not in a
postion to control its supply, but the judge said Jones was more obviously
to be compared with the director of the company who was found guilty
because he could have stopped the supply of the gas.
anyway depending on what happens on thursday 10th hearing , which will
decide if EDO can use all the police disclosure about other unrelated
trials (including agrexco)and pending trials relating to demo arrests, the
main show begins november 21st and last two weeks.
Hope this helps
courtwatch