Agrexco UK Valentines Blockade Case Dropped by Met Police
Israeli War Criminals Cornered as Blockade of Israeli export company is deemed legal by Met police.
2 April 2007
Israeli War Criminals Cornered as Blockade of Israeli export company is deemed legal by Met police.
2 April 2007
The case against three protesters from London and Brighton who were arrested at the Carmel-Agrexco distribution centre at a valentines blockade in February, have now been dropped by Met Police.
The three blockaders had been arrested on suspicion of 'obstructing the
highway' even though police on the scene were told loudly by protesters
that the road on which they sat was private, and not a highway under the
definition in the Highways Act.
Later at the police station, to cover this possibility, police arrested
the three a second time on suspicion of Aggravated Trespass for being on
'adjoining land' to a 'lawful business' (Agrexco) and obstructing it. Police
had witnessed the affect of the blockade holding up deliveries to the
factory at one of the busiest times of the year for the company, and had
arrested the three to allow entry of a truckload of Israeli produce to
enter the Agrexco site.
On Saturday DS Kofi of Uxbridge Police Station confirmed to a solicitor of one of the
protesters, that the road outside the Agrexco UK plant is indeed a private
road and therefore not a public highway. No-one blocking it in future can
be arrested under suspicion of 'obstructing the highway'. The owner of the road is believed to be a private company not connected to Agrexco UK.
DS Kofi also confirmed that no witnesses had come forward from Agrexco UK to give
evidence that the company had been adversely affected by the protest, so
the possible Aggravated Trespass 'on adjoining land' charge could not be
continued either.
Since Feb 2005 when 7 blockaders won an important case at Uxbridge
Magistrates Court, (during which Agrexco UK manager Amos Or was cross
examined over Agrexco's complicity in crimes against humnity and war
crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories for several hours), the company have refused
to cooperate with police seeking to prosecute protesters who have shut
down the factory on four subsequent occasions, despite obvious disruption to their business. Agrexco have been anxious in press statements to deny any disruption from the blockades, even though in the first blockade court case they claimed to have lost £100,000 in business.
It is believed the company are afraid that any new court hearing would force them to disclose more information about their complicity in crimes under international
humanitarian law committed by Israel. In the 2005 case Amos Or admitted
under oath that the UK company, which is 50% Israeli state owned, imports
70% of the produce from West Bank settlements which have been ruled illegal
under international law by the International Court of Justice.
The latest clarification of the English law by Uxbridge police leaves open the
possibility that they will have no powers in future to arrest
demonstrators who peacefully blockade Agrexco UK, unless the company are
prepared to give evidence against protesters in court that their business was disrupted.
From now on any future arrests made by Met police for suspected 'obstruction of the
highway' outside Agrexco open them up to civil claims for false arrest
which could cost the force thousands of pounds in damages.
One of the blockaders who had their case dropped, said
' Agrexco UK are now exposed to the possibility of a permanent blockade of there business, that the police will be unable to remove unless the company are prepared to give evidence against protesters in court under aggravated trespass laws.'
' If Agrexco do this the illegal nature of their operations, complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied territories will be exposed. Whatever they do they can't win. The war criminals are cornered. Now is the time to peacefully blockade them without fear or arrest'
BACKGROUND INFO-
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/361900.html
***
The three blockaders had been arrested on suspicion of 'obstructing the
highway' even though police on the scene were told loudly by protesters
that the road on which they sat was private, and not a highway under the
definition in the Highways Act.
Later at the police station, to cover this possibility, police arrested
the three a second time on suspicion of Aggravated Trespass for being on
'adjoining land' to a 'lawful business' (Agrexco) and obstructing it. Police
had witnessed the affect of the blockade holding up deliveries to the
factory at one of the busiest times of the year for the company, and had
arrested the three to allow entry of a truckload of Israeli produce to
enter the Agrexco site.
On Saturday DS Kofi of Uxbridge Police Station confirmed to a solicitor of one of the
protesters, that the road outside the Agrexco UK plant is indeed a private
road and therefore not a public highway. No-one blocking it in future can
be arrested under suspicion of 'obstructing the highway'. The owner of the road is believed to be a private company not connected to Agrexco UK.
DS Kofi also confirmed that no witnesses had come forward from Agrexco UK to give
evidence that the company had been adversely affected by the protest, so
the possible Aggravated Trespass 'on adjoining land' charge could not be
continued either.
Since Feb 2005 when 7 blockaders won an important case at Uxbridge
Magistrates Court, (during which Agrexco UK manager Amos Or was cross
examined over Agrexco's complicity in crimes against humnity and war
crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories for several hours), the company have refused
to cooperate with police seeking to prosecute protesters who have shut
down the factory on four subsequent occasions, despite obvious disruption to their business. Agrexco have been anxious in press statements to deny any disruption from the blockades, even though in the first blockade court case they claimed to have lost £100,000 in business.
It is believed the company are afraid that any new court hearing would force them to disclose more information about their complicity in crimes under international
humanitarian law committed by Israel. In the 2005 case Amos Or admitted
under oath that the UK company, which is 50% Israeli state owned, imports
70% of the produce from West Bank settlements which have been ruled illegal
under international law by the International Court of Justice.
The latest clarification of the English law by Uxbridge police leaves open the
possibility that they will have no powers in future to arrest
demonstrators who peacefully blockade Agrexco UK, unless the company are
prepared to give evidence against protesters in court that their business was disrupted.
From now on any future arrests made by Met police for suspected 'obstruction of the
highway' outside Agrexco open them up to civil claims for false arrest
which could cost the force thousands of pounds in damages.
One of the blockaders who had their case dropped, said
' Agrexco UK are now exposed to the possibility of a permanent blockade of there business, that the police will be unable to remove unless the company are prepared to give evidence against protesters in court under aggravated trespass laws.'
' If Agrexco do this the illegal nature of their operations, complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied territories will be exposed. Whatever they do they can't win. The war criminals are cornered. Now is the time to peacefully blockade them without fear or arrest'
BACKGROUND INFO-
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/361900.html ***
Homepage:
