UK Indymedia | SOCPA pair Milan Rai & Maya Evans convicted

Milan Rai and Maya Evans were convicted today under SOCPA for organising and participating in last October's "No More Fallujahs" action. They were fined just £100 each, and the pair do not intend to pay the fines.

This morning at Westminster Magistrates Court Milan Rai and Maya Evans were convicted under SOCPA for organising and participating in an unlawful protest. The offence relates to last October's "No More Fallujahs" action. Judge Tubbs fined the pair just £100 each, with no costs, for offences which carry a maximum possible penalty of 51 weeks imprisonment. Rai and Evans stated that they do not intend to pay the fines. They are now no longer banned from central London.

http://www.j-n-v.org/

http://www.voices.netuxo.co.uk/

all that aside!

yes indeed at the original trial the cps turned up and said they were dropping the charge of 'organising'. this scuppered a lot of milan and maya's plans for the day as they'd lined up several witnesses who were all co-organisers to make statements to the court - probably not a huge help to their case but a promising bit of court theatre.

anyway, as reported at the time, the case floundered from the start because the judge decided that milan and maya were in contempt because they refused to give their dates of birth. they were hauled off to the cells and a contempt hearing was arranged for a few days later. at that, no-one could come up with a statute that showed the date of birth was required by law, and so the contempt was thrown out - a useful fact to remember when asked for your d.o.b.! milan has indeed previously been arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned (relating to his grafittoing the ministry of defence building) without ever giving his birthdate.

anyway, with the contempt cleared up, they were scheduled in court today for a short case management hearing to set a date for the trial. the cps this time laid both charges, and because no notes had been kept from before, and it was a different cps barrister with no record of the dropped charge, milan and maya were given the choice to return on monday and see if the original cps barrister could throw light on the matter. but they decided to ask for the trial to go ahead anyway. since the original date, other organisers have been charged, so there would be opportunities for witnesses to come to the court for them.

since they were now offering no witnesses and only statements in their defence, the case was heard today after all (as another day-long case had been adjourned and there was some free court time).

an hour later, judge tubbs reached her verdict. she was very scathing of the cps and was not impressed by their bringing two different charges for what was effectively a single event. so she dispensed with the 'participating' offence with no fine and no costs, and charged £100 fines and no costs for the 'organising' offences, even though both defendants had previous convictions.

this is all quite bizarre, as back in the early days of socpa, maya received a larger fine for merely participating, and milan had received several hundred pounds in fines and costs for 'organising'.

both have agreed there is not a lot of point in appealing as their previous cases are slowly making their ways up to the european courts, and any result there will allow a further challenge to this verdict once resolved.

about the maximum prison terms, i had the (probably unfounded) belief that when socpa first came in, the max was 3 months, but that at a certain date (april 2006?) it would increase to 51 weeks. i'm not certain where i got that from. so, i for one would appreciate if the two legals bods could avoid point-scoring and sniping and explain to us non-legal mortals what the present situation is. ta.

Maximum sentence is 3 months, not 51 weeks

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/50015--n.htm#175

Thought I'd read somewhere that the charges of organising the demo, which potentially carry a prison sentence, had been dropped. Wasn't this a charge of participating in an unauthorised demo?

Milan and Maya where charge on convicted up s. 132 of SOCPA

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50015--l.htm#132

the maximum penulty for which is £2,500 fine (a level 4 fine on the standard scale Criminal Justice Act 1982 s.37, and can be amended when required) plus not longer than 51 weeks in side.

this is set out in section 136 of SOCPA -

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50015--l.htm#136

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_scale

streetlawyer, how did you mis-understand the act?

> streetlawyer, how did you mis-understand the act?

I didn't, as you would know if you had followed the link I included.

SOCPA s175(3):
--------------------------------------------------------
In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for summary offences), the references in the following provisions of this Act to periods of imprisonment of 51 weeks are to be read as references to the periods of imprisonment specified in respect of those provisions as follows-

[...]

section 136(1) - 3 months
section 136(3)(a) - 3 months
section 136(4) - 3 months
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/50015--n.htm#175

streetlawyer - i did look at the link you put in your original post

rikki - I don't think it is point scoring. i think it is about the clarification of one a point regarding s. 132 of SCOPA.

i believe the terms of conviction come under s. 136

(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 132(1)(a) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50015--l.htm#136

streetlawyer thinks the terms of conviction come under s. 175

(3) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for summary offences), the references in the following provisions of this Act to periods of imprisonment of 51 weeks are to be read as references to the periods of imprisonment specified in respect of those provisions as follows-

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/50015--n.htm#175

clearly most people think, or it seams to me, that most people believe it is 51 weeks (when it comes to imprisonment), but it clearly needs to be worked out if it is 51 weeks or 3 months.

So what was the evidence that these two were organisers?

I think both Mil and Maya were quite open and explcit about being both organisers and participants. They did not contest the prosector's evidence. Their point is that they were doing nothing wrong and were seeking to challenge the law.

yep, patrick is right

both were absolutely straightforward with the police telling them they were co-organisers along with several others who were not arrested at first. some have since been additionally charged.

my comment about point-scoring was really about the tone of street lawyers response, but it's not meant as a big deal.

so we're still basically confused about the max sentence?

anyone else got an opinion/answer?

Ok, I'm going to try to give this a go at explaining, btw thanks 'streetlawyer' for highlighting how awkward and hard it is to understand BlairLaw (as intended by parliament).

s132(1)(a) SOCPA2005 = "Any person who - (a) organises a demonstration in a public place in the designated area... is guilty of an offence if, when the demonstration starts, authorisation for the demonstration has not been given..." Thus creates the offence of organising [others to take part in democracy - personal comment].

s136(1) SOCPA2005 = "A person guilty of an offence under section 132(1)(a) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, ..." Thus creating the penalty for the offence.

Now comes step 1 of the difficulties - Commencement!

s175(3) SOCPA2005 = "In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for summary offences), the references in the following provisions of this Act to periods of imprisonment of 51 weeks are to be read as references to the periods of imprisonment specified in respect of those provisions as follows - ... Section 136(1) - 3 months ..." Thus creating a transitionary period where the penalty is only 3 months (NOT 51 weeks).

Therefore until the commencement of s281(5) Criminal Justice Act 2003, the maximum penalty is ONLY 3 months [Dunno about you, but I don't think you should have 1 day, let alone ANY longer period!]

Now step 2 of the difficulties - this is where BlairLaw tries to confuse you to hell [and back]

s281(5) CJA2003 is itself not relevant, however the section of the CJA2003 that allows commencement of s281 is. And 'lo and behold', keeping the NewTradition of BlairLaw obscuring everything behind a smoke-screen...

s336(3) CJA2003 = "The remaining provisions of this Act come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order." Thereby requiring a 'commencement order' [clear as mud so far!?]

The story so far.... A commencement order by the Secretary of State to commence s281(5) CJA2003 is required to commence the 51 week penalty for s136(1) SOCPA2005....

So far, to date, the commencement orders for CJA2003 have not included s281(5). This can be seen from the latest commencement order, no. 8 (amendment) -

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20070391.htm

At the end of this is a table that shows what sections have been commenced by order, s281 CJA2003 hasn't so far.

Summary:

Keep an eye out for 'The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. ? ...) Order 20??' which commences s281(5) CJA2003.

When s281(5) commences, any, s132(1)(a) SOCPA2005, offence COMMITTED on or after this date will be subject to 51 weeks. Until then it is 3 months.

Well done, streetlawyer for noticing that, I have been looking confidently at SOCPA 132 and didn't know that one. BlairLaw beats all [well, reason and common sense anyway].

SteveJ
Still appalled.

well, there it is - thanks steve!

i stand corrected!

thanks for explaining that!

19.05.2007 21:18

SteveJ
mail e-mail: stevej_appalled@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.peopleincommon.org / www.parliament-square.org.uk

thanks to stevej

19.05.2007 23:00

offences

24.05.2007 22:40

SOCPA pair Milan Rai & Maya Evans convicted

Additions

further clarifications

Comments

SOCPA sentences

is this right?

SOCPA 2005 Offences

Re: SOCPA 2005 Offences

Re: Re: SOCPA 2005 Offences

Evidence

Were they "organisers"?

organisers

Re: SOCPA 2005 Offences

thanks to stevej

offences

Kollektives

London Topics

London IMC

Major Coverage

London links

London Links

UK IMCs

Other IMCs