brian haw, who has camped outside parliament for nearly five years as a reminder of their genocidal war-mongering, has been told today that he will have to seek police permission to hold any further demonstration, and that they are likely to impose conditions.
the verdict was read out at the royal courts of justice this morning.
the serious organised crime and police act came into force on the 1st august last year, section 132 of which requires any person intending to hold a demonstration near parliament to seek authorisation from the police and to adhere to any conditions that the police may apply.
brian haw won a court case in july last year against the home secretary and the metropolitan police which gave him permission to apply for judicial review, and quashed some provisions of the act, on the basis that it could not apply to his continuing demonstration that had started in june 2001.
he won the case and since august 1st his demonstration has been the ONLY one that has not needed police permission. however, the home sec and the met appealed against this decision, and today's verdict was the response to that appeal.
the appeal has been allowed.
section 132 DOES apply to brian haw
costs have been set aside and brian will not be made to pay any costs.
permission to appeal to the house of lords is REFUSED
permission to stay in parliament square pending any petition to the lords is also REFUSED.
brian is not prevented from petitioning the lords himself, but he is now subject to the socpa act until any further future judgement.
brian himself was not in court this morning, preferring to continue his demonstration against government policy in iraq, against the use of depleted uranium which will poison the land and the people for millions of years, against the wholesale looting of the country by big business, against the abuse of civilians, women and children, and against the lies that this government and the mainstream media told and continue to tell.
once the verdict was announced, the press pack moved in on brian, and asked their usual facile questions. he tried to get his real message across, not pandering to their soundbite mentality, and berating them for asking pointless questions.
he also told us that he had known the outcome of this verdict for the past week but would have been in contempt of court to divulge it - so he was not actually surprised today.
meanwhile, other seasoned demonstrators and anti-socpa campaigners seized the opportunity of press coverage to launch their own messages about the need for a real movement to recover the civil rights that are being stolen from us month by month under this government. police had obviously been told to act very softly softly while the media were there, and turned a blind eye even to the use of a megaphone, which is banned under socpa legislation.
brian's solicitor, steve goss, from bindmans, stated that they had now notified the police that brian would be staying in the square for the foreseeable future.
under the act, the police will HAVE to give permission for brian's demo, but they may impose conditions which are set out in the act as follows:
"if the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that
a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,
he may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation.
this means there is a possibility that police may impose time restrictions on brian's protest, and thus might require him to remove his extensive fixed banner display. it is unclear yet what their response will be.
it is understood senior met officers were meeting at 12.30 to debate these issues and will be contacting steve from bindmans with some information later. at present, and certainly while the cameras are there, the police have no intention of wading in and removing his presence, but under cover of darkness who knows...........?
if you want to help in any way, especially if you have a camera and can spend time in the square, please look at brian's website for info on a regular basis and get in touch.
the anti-socpa campaigning picnics will continue every sunday in parliament square and all are invited - bring ideas and food to share. they start around 1.30 every week and all are welcome.
more info on these can be found at www.peopleincommon.org
i will post more information on the police response as an addition here later. there will also be a short film in a separate post on indymedia later.
the serious organised crime and police act came into force on the 1st august last year, section 132 of which requires any person intending to hold a demonstration near parliament to seek authorisation from the police and to adhere to any conditions that the police may apply.
brian haw won a court case in july last year against the home secretary and the metropolitan police which gave him permission to apply for judicial review, and quashed some provisions of the act, on the basis that it could not apply to his continuing demonstration that had started in june 2001.
he won the case and since august 1st his demonstration has been the ONLY one that has not needed police permission. however, the home sec and the met appealed against this decision, and today's verdict was the response to that appeal.
the appeal has been allowed.
section 132 DOES apply to brian haw
costs have been set aside and brian will not be made to pay any costs.
permission to appeal to the house of lords is REFUSED
permission to stay in parliament square pending any petition to the lords is also REFUSED.
brian is not prevented from petitioning the lords himself, but he is now subject to the socpa act until any further future judgement.
brian himself was not in court this morning, preferring to continue his demonstration against government policy in iraq, against the use of depleted uranium which will poison the land and the people for millions of years, against the wholesale looting of the country by big business, against the abuse of civilians, women and children, and against the lies that this government and the mainstream media told and continue to tell.
once the verdict was announced, the press pack moved in on brian, and asked their usual facile questions. he tried to get his real message across, not pandering to their soundbite mentality, and berating them for asking pointless questions.
he also told us that he had known the outcome of this verdict for the past week but would have been in contempt of court to divulge it - so he was not actually surprised today.
meanwhile, other seasoned demonstrators and anti-socpa campaigners seized the opportunity of press coverage to launch their own messages about the need for a real movement to recover the civil rights that are being stolen from us month by month under this government. police had obviously been told to act very softly softly while the media were there, and turned a blind eye even to the use of a megaphone, which is banned under socpa legislation.
brian's solicitor, steve goss, from bindmans, stated that they had now notified the police that brian would be staying in the square for the foreseeable future.
under the act, the police will HAVE to give permission for brian's demo, but they may impose conditions which are set out in the act as follows:
"if the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that
a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,
he may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation.
this means there is a possibility that police may impose time restrictions on brian's protest, and thus might require him to remove his extensive fixed banner display. it is unclear yet what their response will be.
it is understood senior met officers were meeting at 12.30 to debate these issues and will be contacting steve from bindmans with some information later. at present, and certainly while the cameras are there, the police have no intention of wading in and removing his presence, but under cover of darkness who knows...........?
if you want to help in any way, especially if you have a camera and can spend time in the square, please look at brian's website for info on a regular basis and get in touch.
the anti-socpa campaigning picnics will continue every sunday in parliament square and all are invited - bring ideas and food to share. they start around 1.30 every week and all are welcome.
more info on these can be found at www.peopleincommon.org
i will post more information on the police response as an addition here later. there will also be a short film in a separate post on indymedia later.
Homepage:
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 22 comments