Fitwatchers arrested for "intimidating the police" at STWC march

fitwatch | 16.03.2008 02:45 | Repression | London

Four people were arrested near Trafalgar Square around 1:15pm on Saturday during the Stop the war Coalition rally, accused of intimidating a Forward Intelligence Team. Officer XB92 'Wayne' Rooney requested back-up from three van loads of the Met's 'Griffon' squad - supposed to provide additional security against "the threat of terrorism" within the "Government Security Zone". Leaflets about the Campaign for Free Asssembly (

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/393790.html) were seized as evidence, along with cameras, mobile phones and notebooks. The arrests were made under s241 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, see below. All four were released on bail without charge after being held at Bishopsgate police station for 9 hours.

XB92 'Wayne' Rooney pictured with FIT snapper Neal Williams on Mayday 2007

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)
Part V Industrial action

241.
Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise.
— (1) A person commits an offence who, with a view to compelling another person to abstain from doing or to do any act which that person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority—
(a) uses violence to or intimidates that person or his wife or children, or injures his property,
(b) persistently follows that person about from place to place,
(c) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof,
(d) watches or besets the house or other place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to any such house or place, or
(e) follows that person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2357720

fitwatch
Homepage: http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/

Additions

On bail without charge

16.03.2008 10:56

I totally agree with the "sexist" comment. The same was said (quite loudly) at the station yesterday. Very badly written ( 'injures' his property??) and very sexist.

No way did the FIT-watchers expect to get nicked yesterday for that. Cops claim they warned them that what they were doing was an arrestable offence...then arrested them straight after.

At the station, when looking at the legislation, one custody sergeant talked to another, quietly but clearly enough for one of those arrested to over-hear him.

"This isn't going to work... Even if they get found guilty of this, it's just going to go to judicial review and we won't be able to use it anymore. They'll only be able to arrest once under this act. We might as well just drop it now."

"Yeah, but it's not down to us is it..?" (Coming from the guys who have the power to decide whether or not to athorise the arrest and detention..)

An obscure arrest, easier to prove than 'obstruction of an officer' and has a bigger punishment. One which only one or two of the cops understood, the rest were as confused as those nicked under it.

Bail on 30th April.

Pariah

Comments

Hide the following 25 comments

Shame on them!

16.03.2008 06:38

Well done Fitwatchers for having the balls to square up to servants of the State, unlike the sheep herded from A to B by them.

Wotsit

with legal authority?

16.03.2008 06:56

So it's ok to do any of those things (a) to (e) if you've got 'legal authority', eh?

unfit

sexist

16.03.2008 08:27

"uses violence to or intimidates that person or his wife or children, or injures his property, "

WOW! Does that mean this law doesn't apply to working women and their husbands???

Crap law, intended for political purposes and badly written.

shocked

sexist

16.03.2008 12:00

Get real. There is nothing unusual about the way that legislation is written, it is all written like that, male orrientated and designed to protect the interests of the bosses.

shemale

police jobs

16.03.2008 12:22

I spoke to a police officer and asked if he knew that paying taxes to the Central UK Government constituted Illegal activity in that it is defined as 'conduct ancilliary to the commisssion of a war crime' under the 2001 International Crimianl Court Act 2001.

The police officer indicated that he was aware, but that "it's more than my jobsworth" (his words) to withold his tax payments.

Which is to say that his job is more important than the lives of Iraqi and Afghan Civilians, and that upholding the Law is of lessor importance.....

War Criminals!

El Gordo "Fat boy" Brown

Regarding the sexist comment...

16.03.2008 13:05

Statute law is generally written in such a way as to assume that any "person" referred to is male. That's just how they work. Having said that, it does seem strange to refer specifically to "wife", when they could use terms like "partner" or "spouse", not least because it implies that the law is only applicable if you're married to said individual.
Having read a few acts, it does seem to be rather poorly written in comparison to more recent ones. It uses strange language such as "house" instead of "property", etc. Oh well, it seems to be decipherable anyway, and it's good news that they were let off, although the FITwatch guys I spoke to at the end of the march didn't seem to be aware of the arrests. I didn't see much FIT to be honest, which is an interesting contrast to the autonomous bloc last year where we were trailed the whole way by a massive group of them.

rogue

thanks for some REAL analysis as not shown on TV

16.03.2008 13:58

If you have a minute please have a listen to our solidarity mp3 with a Lebanese perspective on it all. The US, UK and Israel's undeclared third world war that is, not FIT.

Hear the geezer the Bristol elitists at the local paper and the Tory group on the council tried to ban.

http://www.dialectradio.co.uk

http://www.tjpdesign.co.uk/wordpress/2008/03/15/lebanese-newspaper-editors-middle-east-analysis-stop-the-war-march-solidarity/

Tony Gosling

possibly a silly question, but out of interest...

16.03.2008 18:13

...were there any FIT at the protests against Scientology opposite their Tottenham Court Road and Queen Street branches?
Also in central London, same day, same time...

fighting fit

Go for judicial review while you've got the chance

16.03.2008 18:18

Rogue, do you have some info not in this thread- were they let off, then?

If not, looks like the Met have raised the stakes and the only possibility is to bring up in court the legality of what the FIT do.

The reason FITwatch started was _exactly_ because police are harassing people in order to 'dissuade' them from turning up at demos.

It's a shame for whoever's been landed with court cases here, but the law they've been nicked under is a golden opportunity to get the FIT's practices reviewed by a judge in Crown court.

241.
Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise.
— (1) A person commits an offence who,
with a view to compelling another person to
abstain from doing or to do:
any act which that person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing,
wrongfully and without legal authority—

'legal authority' applies here to us, not the FIT.

If it's accepted the purpose of FITwatch is to compel the cops not to harass us, then the question in court becomes:

Is (everything) what the FIT do something that they have a legal right to do?
and is there implicit in the law one interpretation for the police and one for the rest of us?

The law on photography in private places has been tested, and while celebrites can be photographed somewhere short of relentlessly, it's different for normal folks.

It's not the normal course of policing, and, as they also take photos of people who have no criminal record, and before anyone has commited a crime, it's the same as stalking muslims because they're members of a group, some of whom have commited crimes unique to muslim communities- There is no justifiable suspicion of most of the people they are harassing.

The 'prevention of crime' argument is the only (legal) extra they get by being a cop, and because there's no special case here for them to use photography, they can only use 'prevention of crime'
if they accept it means they aim to intimidate innocent people out of doing something illegal.
(No they aren't allowed to arbitrarily intimidate those they suspect -sorry to break that you, the Met)

There's no special law for them to do this, so they only have the rights anyone would have in respect of photographing people - exactly what they are claiming is 'intimidation' when it's used against them.

I'll point out here that I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think I've missed any biggies. I reckon FIT have shot themselves in the foot here, just hope they (and, more important, the people who are looking at six months) want to take it to court.

dt
mail e-mail: swellpennyswell@live.com

"Industrial Action" law is not a general police power

16.03.2008 18:24

I cannot see how a bit of Trades Union Strike legislation can be used as a general police power, applicable, to a demonstration which was clearly nothing to do with any "industrial action".

Who exactly were the Police claiming was on strike ?

If the legal system allows this, then the the *Forward Intelligence teams themselves* could be reported under the same section 241

"(b)persistently follows that person about from place to place,

(d)*watches* or besets the house or *other place where that person* resides, works, carries on business or *happens to be*, or the approach to any such house or place, or"

Not convinced

Rooney is corrupt scum

16.03.2008 20:29

Watch out for that one. Had previous encounter with him, totally violating PACE. He's seriously aggressive too.

Usual tales of police incompetence - shows Fitwatch is clearly irritating them though.
Nice one.

copwatcher

As for whether I have any extra info...

16.03.2008 22:21

The top of the article says "All four were released on bail without charge after being held at Bishopsgate police station for 9 hours." On the basis that it says without charge, in combination with what the article claims the police were saying, I'm making the (perhaps unjustified) assumption that they won't be charged.I suppose it's always possible that the police could backtrack and decide it was worth charging them over if they thought there was a chance of it sticking.

I saw one of the FITwatch guys before the march, couldnt find them for the rest of the day, and then found them at Parliament Square when I arrived, walked over and had a chat with them about how it all went, but they didn't mention anyone being arrested so I assume they weren't aware at that point.
Of course they may have just not wanted to tell someone they didn't know all the details of their friend's arrest, or whatever.

As pointed out above, FIT's actions could be illegal under this legislation. The question is how to do anything about it. We can't exactly attempt a citizen's arrest on FIT, now, can we?

rogue

no one was let off!

16.03.2008 23:24

Rogue wrote:

"On the basis that it says without charge, in combination with what the article claims the police were saying, I'm making the (perhaps unjustified) assumption that they won't be charged."

This is standard practice for all but the simplest offences these days, and this certainly ain't simple. It's partly because the CPS make the charging decision and partly because it's an easy way for the police to fuck with people by rebailling them repeatedly for months and months.

"I saw one of the FITwatch guys before the march, couldnt find them for the rest of the day, and then found them at Parliament Square when I arrived, walked over and had a chat with them about how it all went, but they didn't mention anyone being arrested so I assume they weren't aware at that point."

The arrests were away from the main demo so they just didn't know.

fitwatcher

Legal options

17.03.2008 00:18

If no charges are brought, or if the defendants are acquitted, among the options are:

(a) judicial review
(b) sue the police for wrongful arrest and detention, and the police / Crown for malicious prosecution (if relevant)
(c) lodge complaint with Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
(d) write to / lobby MP, etc
(e) send the arresting officer / prosecutor a love letter

I'd consider one or more of actions (a) to (c) based on breach of Convention rights, as incorporated into the law of England and Wales through the Human Rights Act 1998:

European Convention on Human Rights

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
Human Rights Act 1998

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1

Article 5 - Right to liberty and security
Article 8 - Right to privacy

Specialist legal advice could or should be sought from a sympathetic firm of solicitors specialising in human rights and protestors' rights, and an application can of course be made for legal aid.

Paul Hussey

Arrests don't mean charges

17.03.2008 08:42

What an arrest is effected for doesn't mean that the charge will be for that - once evidence is examined other charges may result. Meanwhile the 'problem' has been removed (from the street) - the police cahnge tactics just as protestors do.

The Green man

TULRCA

17.03.2008 17:27

This Act is a consolidation Act, that is contains bits of legislation taken from other statutes. This particular bit dates back a long time, which is why it is written in rather discriminatory language that you would not find in modern legislation. The original statute (I'm afraid I cant remember off-hand what it was) did not relate to industrial action, therefore the use of this Act is not limited to arrests involving strikes.

It has been used against politicos before, but it is definitely a desperation measure. And I suspect it will present particular 'challenges' for the prosecution.

Fitwatch must be doing something right.

fitwatcher

one step closer to the death of patriarchy

17.03.2008 17:28

This law was amended by the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to say:

"uses violence to or intimidates that person or his spouse or civil partner or children, or injures his property"

but the Government's own website still hasn't caught up.

eminfist

rooney

17.03.2008 20:09

yeh, that rooney is an aggressive, arrogant shit.
ive had a couple of run ins with him.
the first time a legal observer came to my aid and he made her feel about the size of a pea.

on a seperate note... the general vibe of the protest was much more relaxed than the small handful of other protests i've been to. most of the police were smiling and quite chatty...

neck

how nice

17.03.2008 23:52

>> most of the police were smiling and quite chatty

when they're eventually turning on the gas taps in our internment prisons or their marksmen are lining us against the wall they probably will be the above too

who's next

Yet to find out

18.03.2008 12:01

After reading the comments...

We're on bail on the 30th April. They may decide to charge us still - basically all they have to do is to prove we followed them/obstructed them. It's a lot easier for them to use this act as opposed to something like "Obstructing a police officer"

The reason the bail date is a few weeks away is because they haven't had a chance to look at their evidence and they took our phones to see if there's any "evidence" on them so everything will have to be downloaded from them. they may decide to just re-interview us and then bail us again...

The legislation has been used, apparently, against "road protesters" before, I can't remember the cast that was mentioned though. But I doubt that's the same situation as allegedly following cops.

The old legislation was from 1877 or around that time and used to be something to do with conspiracy, the section we were arrested under called "watching and besetting".

The legislation was given to my solicitor and I in the station and had extra information attached (from the PNLD which unfortunately you only have access to if you work for the cops...) - this info included a line which stated that the legislation didn't apply to "the armed forces, the police and (??)" I've forgotten the other one stated.

So, unfortunately, we can't turn it round on them. I'm willing to argue in court still though...

We'll see how it goes.

Pariah

sec 241

18.03.2008 15:45

was used against 'digger-diving' road protesters, 1993 Jesmond Dene Newcastle was when my firends (and a man in a pink panther suit) had it used on them. It is indeed a cobbled-together statute incorporating Miners' Strike law to prevent secondary picketting. The police stopped using it fairly swiftly back then, and held out for the more specific anti-hunt sabs and road protester law enshrined in 'aggravated trespass' of the CJA 1995. I think they dropped it because it is so vague they don't want to publicise it, or because it involves proving that there was intimidation going on. Certainly now video can disprove that fairly easily.

anarchoteapot

(a) uses violence to or intimidates that person or his wife or children, or inju

19.03.2008 16:25

(a) uses violence to or intimidates that person or his wife or children, or injures his property,

Is it o.k. to imtimidate the females??? :) wolve wistles and all...

loppy

FIT at Scientology demo

20.03.2008 16:05

In response to an above comment asking if FIT were at the Scientology demonstrations taking place the same day:

I didn't see any at the Tottenham Court Road demonstration. At the earlier one on Queen Victoria Street, while a full FIT squad was not deployed, one of the cops did have a hand-held camcorder which he was using from across the street.

Temple of Xenu
Homepage: http://templeofxenu.wordpress.com

@ Pariah

01.04.2008 10:52

"The legislation was given to my solicitor and I in the station and had extra information attached (from the PNLD which unfortunately you only have access to if you work for the cops...) - this info included a line which stated that the legislation didn't apply to "the armed forces, the police and (??)" I've forgotten the other one stated. "

In what way does it say that they are exempt? Any chance that you could argue that they don't fit the definition of 'person' in the bill and therefore it would be impossible to commit an offence against them.

MonkeyBot 5000

@PAriah -there is still hope...

01.04.2008 17:04

After reading the comments...

>The legislation was given to my solicitor and I in the station and had extra information attached (from the PNLD >which unfortunately you only have access to if you work for the cops...) - this info included a line which stated >that the legislation didn't apply to "the armed forces, the police and (??)" I've forgotten the other one stated.

That sounds logical they'd include that, but, of course, you know you can check it out in the statute books at main libraries - we ain't quite at the stage where the laws have secret exemptions in them!
But whether or not this law applies to them is not so relevant...

>We're on bail on the 30th April. They may decide to charge us still - basically all they have to do is to prove we >followed them/obstructed them. It's a lot easier for them to use this act as opposed to something like >"Obstructing >a police officer"
>

Even if they show you were following/ obstructing/ whatever, the legislation still specifies they have to be doing something they have the legal right to do -with them harassing people taking photos, even if it's not specifically prohibited in law, it's not their legal right to do it. Eg, it's a legal right for me to knock on my neighbour's door, say to ask them to the resident's meeting. It's an abuse of a legal right for me to keep knocking until they do what I want.

Still, it's true there's no saying this s.241 is what they'll use if it goes to court.

dt