On Thursday 23rd March 2006 a High Court Judge handed
down a damning judgement against an arms company. He
struck out an interim injunction against remaining
defendants in the controversial harassment injunction
case brought against anti-war protesters in Brighton
by arms manufacturers EDO MBM Technology Ltd.
The case has been continuing in the High Court for
nearly a year without reaching a full trial despite an
court order that a speedy trial should be prepared
for because of ‘human rights implications’.
‘The blame for loss of the trial date in my view
undoubtedly lies with the claimants’ says Judge
Walker.
down a damning judgement against an arms company. He
struck out an interim injunction against remaining
defendants in the controversial harassment injunction
case brought against anti-war protesters in Brighton
by arms manufacturers EDO MBM Technology Ltd.
The case has been continuing in the High Court for
nearly a year without reaching a full trial despite an
court order that a speedy trial should be prepared
for because of ‘human rights implications’.
‘The blame for loss of the trial date in my view
undoubtedly lies with the claimants’ says Judge
Walker.
Last month EDO MBM agreed to lift the interim
injunction against all but a handful of protesters in
a settlement that means they will have to pay hundreds
of thousands of pounds in defence legal costs. If they
had hoped this would stop a hearing of defendant’s
allegations of abuse of process they had not counted
on two defendants Lorna Marcham and Chris Osmond,
refusing a settlement agreement and continuing to
fight without the help of legal professionals. They
are supported in court by the hard won experience of
Helen Steel and Dave Morris of the McLibel trial, and
Dr Max Gastone of SHAC who act as Mackenzie friends.
Marcham and Osmond have won an important legal victory
despite the odds being stacked against them. EDO is a
giant US Corporation and is represented by a QC,
Robert Englehart, a barrister, Clive H. Jones and two
solicitors including the notorious ‘exclusion zone’
architect Tim Lawson-Cruttenden. In his judgement
Judge Walker agrees with Marcham and Osmond that EDO
deliberately delayed the trial date in the
proceedings. He says EDO ‘showed a wilful disregard of
the importance of maintaining an early trial date’.
Judge Walker says: ‘On any view the claimants were
seriously at fault, for they either failed to consider
an obvious problem, or if they did consider it they
should have raised it with the defendants before
reaching the stage of disclosure as it plainly had the
potential to prejudice the trial date.’
‘My overall conclusion is that there was, to say the
least, a woeful neglect on the part of the claimants
to focus on the need to prepare for a speedy trial,
and that at least in one respect there was a wilful
disregard of the importance of maintaining an early
trial date.’
‘The blame for loss of the trial date in my view
undoubtedly lies with the claimants. It should not
necessarily be assumed that fault in this regard is
attributable only to the claimants’ then legal team. I
note that Mr Jones [David Jones, Managing Director of
EDO MBM who resigned on December 31st 2005. (Ed’s
note.)] was present at the hearings. He must have been
aware that the court was anxious that the claimants
should concentrate on the real issues and not allow
the case to become mired in side issues.’
Judge Walker expressly criticises Tim
Lawson-Cruttenden, EDO’s original lawyer who claims to
be the ‘market leader in the bringing of harassment
injunctions against protest groups’. Lawson-Cruttenden
works closely with Special Branch, and the National
Extremist Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU), a
national police unit set up to harass animal rights
activists.
Responding to the defendant’s charge that
Lawson-Cruttenden, had solicited confidential material
about defendants from police sources that had been
explicitly disallowed by a previous high court judge,
Judge Walker writes ‘It must have been plain to Mr
Lawson-Cruttenden that the material which in due
course was disclosed went well beyond Judge Simon’s
order. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden said he was not going to
“argue the toss.” This was not an acceptable approach.
At the very least there was doubt as to whether Sussex
Police had correctly followed the court’s order. As an
officer of the court it was his duty to raise the
matter. I regard this as a serious failing for which
the claimants must bear responsibility.’
Lawson-Cruttenden now faces investigation by the Law
Society and possible legal actions by others unjustly
affected by his anti-protest activities. The status of
several other ‘exclusion zones’ in which
Lawson-Cruttenden has been instrumental have also been
placed in doubt by the judgement.
Having blamed EDO for the loss of a speedy trial Judge
Walker went on to outline his penalty for EDO’s
delaying tactics. ‘I consider that it is just and
proportionate that the claimants be deprived of the
benefit of the interim injunction as against the
remaining defendants. The claimants secured that
injunction on the footing that they would proceed to a
speedy trial. The failings I have identified show that
the claimants did not adhere to their obligations. It
would be wrong to allow them to continue’.
Osmond and Marcham now have no restrictions on their
right to protest outside the EDO MBM factory in
Brighton in the period to a full trial against them
which will take place this summer. Judge Walker has
ordered that they should be paid costs by EDO MBM as a
penalty for its abuse of the legal process.
Chris Osmond said. ‘EDO MBM thought we would cave in
when they reached a settlement with the other
defendant’s lawyers, but we fought on and exposed the
dodgy practice of EDO’s legal team and the interim
injunction is now gone forever. I believe when we
finally get to a trial we will win again and EDO’s
complicity in war crimes will be exposed for the world
to see.’
Lorna Marcham said. ‘EDO's delaying tactic has been
used by Tim Lawson-Cruttenden in several other cases
and now at last a judge has been awake enough to
notice what he is up to. Without an injunction EDO are
spending big money on a court case that is giving them
absolutely nothing in return except bad publicity. The
longer it goes on the more money that could be used to
develop weapons that kill innocent civilians is being
spent on fighting us.’
In paralel criminal proceedings against protesters in
Sussex 23 cases have been dropped by the Crown
Prosecution Sevice after the collapse of the EDO
interim injunction and a decision by the CPS to drop
cases rather than disclose communications between EDO
and Sussex Police in the bringing of the injunction.
----
Demonstrations outside the EDO factory in Home Farm
Road, Brighton continue on a regular basis. See
http://www.smashedo.org.uk for details. 30th March 2006. Demonstration at ‘Advanced Weapons
Integration Conference,’5.30pm, Selfridge Hotel,
Oxford Street. LONDON
----
To see two short independent films about the campaign
go to
http://www.schnews.org.uk/schmovies -----
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
Activists have been successful in defending the
injunction and now the exclusion zone now only
applies to two named activists.
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 guided bomb system, widely used in
the "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq and the Hellfire
missile
system.
EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia over being named as "warmongers".
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO who 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.
[ENDS]
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following comment
coverage of judgment on BBC
24.03.2006 00:28
beeb