London Indymedia

SOCPA Is Dead And Buried

rikki | 25.07.2008 00:38 | SOCPA | Repression | London

in westminster magistrates court yesterday, an admission was made by the prosecutors that lent weight to the belief that SOCPA can no longer be used against protestors near parliament

barbara tucker appeared in court yesterday accused of a section 5 offence of causing alarm and distress to mp alan duncan when she harangued him outside parliament on february 26th for voting for the illegal war against iraq and thus conspiring to murder innocent people. ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392412.html)

at the time she was arrested under socpa legislation, along with two others (who weren't even protesting at the time). she was held for more than 20 hours at belgravia police station. because of previous police assaults, she refused to attend the police station on bail, and on the 11th april she was sentenced to two weeks in prison for this offence ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396200.html)


it was suspected that alan duncan was driving this case against police advice, and the charge was transformed into a section 5, although yesterday no arresting officer or charging officer took the stand at westminster court. however, alan duncan turned up, and accused barbara of causing him alarm and distress. she conducted her own defence and cross-examination.

the evidence of various witnesses, including alan duncan himself, was undermined by independent video evidence of the confrontation.

towards the end of the proceedings, the judge closed the case without allowing barbara to sum up, and the case was adjourned for the judge to consider his verdict.

what came out however, was a bombshell for socpa. barbara has been requesting the prosecution case summary for four months prior to this hearing, and only finally received it in court yesterday. hidden amongst pages and pages of print about the incident was the following remarkable statement:

"OWING TO CHANGES IN SOCPA LEGISLATION THE UNAUTHORISED DEMONSTRATION OFFENCES CANNOT BE PROCEEDED WITH"

now, no-one we have come across can explain exactly what this means, and there is no knowledge of parliamentary legislative changes to the act, although various consultations and joint committee hearings have and are still scrutinising the legislation. however, many protestors have been convinced that the police have received instruction that they can no longer prosecute under this legislation, and this case summary would seem to lend weight to that theory.

in the absence of any information to the contrary, it would appear that the claim in this case summary is in itself a lie, but one based on operational instructions from high up the authoritative chain (rather than actual legislative changes as claimed).

what it means to would-be protestors is that SOCPA is over, finished, powerless. if you are protesting near parliament and you are threatened with arrest, you can carry on with impunity. you will not be arrested, or if you are, the case will not be proceeded with and you will have grounds for compensation.

so come on down. we once more live in a free state (ish) - ok, i know there are other far more sinister sections in the act, and then there's the coming counter-terrorism act, and there's asbos, and privatisation of public space, and regulatory investigative powers, and id cards, and cctvs, and corporate injunctions, and threats to press freedom, but hey, at least celebrate this one little moment of victory and freedom!

one more anecdotal addition to this story. the other day i was talking with a high-profile socpa criminal, and they told me that they had been in court a few months ago for non-payment of fines relating to a socpa conviction. they told the judge they had absolutely no intention of paying the fines, but the judge would not listen, and chucked them out of court with a warning that they must pay within 28 days. they didn't. since then, over several months, they have heard nothing more. no bailiffs. no court summonses. no demands. nada. is this an oversight, or is it part of the same pattern? we think SOCPA IS DEAD.

come and protest once more - tell your friends - spread the word - let's party!!

photo to follow of this remarkable admission in the case summary

rikki
- e-mail: rikkiindymedia[@t]gmail(d0t)com
- Homepage: http://www.socpa-movie.blogspot.com

Additions

That piece of paper.

25.07.2008 10:00

There it is in black and white.
There it is in black and white.

All that time and money. I hope the cops feel as stupid as they look!

Guido


Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Smash SOCPA!

25.07.2008 01:33

Now let's free Sean...SOCPA prisoners must be released!

Info  http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22sean+kirtley%22+site%3Aindymedia.org.uk&meta=

Keep up the resistance
- Homepage: http://supportsean.wordpress.com


smash SOCPA

25.07.2008 07:33

the proposed changes I think were just for parliament, not for other SOCPA zones around 'key installations', which not a great believer in parliamentary politics, I think are much more important...

outside the M25 too!


this is only about parliament area socpa

25.07.2008 08:06

for clarity, yes, this is only about sections 132-136, the sections requiring notification for protests near parliament, but also, in response to 'outside the M25' comment, we're not actually aware of any real legislative change. this admission by the cps seems to be based on a lie, but clearly shows that the will to prosecute socpa has gone and they are making up these supposed 'legislative changes' to cover themselves.

rikki


This article is confusing

25.07.2008 09:15

Rikki, I've got the feeling that people who might not know the legislation very well will get a bit confused with this article. First you say Barbara was in court on charges under Section 5 and then you say that she was arrested under SOCPA legislation and that the judge has decided not to proceed with offences due to changes in SOCPA legislation. Many will be under the impression that Section 5 is one of the SOCPA sections up for repeal when in fact it is a section from the Public Order Act 1986 that will continue to be used by the police in the future (and will probably lead to more unjust prosecutions of activists). Has the judge also decided not to proceed with offences regarding charges under Section 5 of POA? I think it's important to clarify this point.

&


& to avoid confusion

25.07.2008 10:06

at the incident, barbara was arrested for 'unauthorised protest' under socpa

she was held for 20 hours

later police changed the charge to section 5, and as barbara was conducting her own defence she asked for the case summary

in the meantime, she was jailed for non-attendance under the bail act (although her defence was that she had reasonable cause not to - a fear for her own safety after a long-established pattern police assaults)

she has continued to ask for the case summary over a period of months but only finally received it on the day of the trial

in the case summary, the reason given for dropping the socpa charge was as i have quoted - the supposed 'changes in legislation'

section 5 is indeed a completely different offence under the public order act and has nothing to do with socpa (or indeed in theory, demonstrating!) at all

the judge did not allow barbara to summarise her defence at the end of the day in court, instead leaving the room and calling a new date for the verdict

i hope that clarifies the story (written very late last night)

thanks to guido for the picture of the document

rikki


I am still being taken to court on a socpa charge on Sept.5...

01.08.2008 14:00

Southwark Crown Court @ 10:oo am and to the Camberwell Green Maggots??? on Sept 8th for section 5 and section 6??? P.O.???

Can someone please explain and did Babs win her P.O. case?

WEll done Babs

CS XXX

Charity
mail e-mail: charitysweet@hotmail.co.uk


reply to charity

09.08.2008 16:37

i should imagine you'll find that when you get to court the cps will say they have decided not to proceed with the socpa charge. if they DO proceed, then make sure you are armed with the pic from indymedia of bab's case summary. they will either have to state in court that there have been no changes in socpa and they wish to proceed, in which case barbara will have further evidence of (yet more) abuse of process - why would the cps so brazenly lie in a court document? or they'll have to accept their own word and drop the case against you. it's certainly a useful piece of evidence.

rikki
mail e-mail: rikkiindymedia[AT]gmail(d0t)com
- Homepage: http://www.socpa-movie.blogspot.com


list to mention on Monday 18th at Southwark

14.08.2008 13:24

thanks rikki...

gave the court a photocopy of this article and document... should be rather interesting to see them square this shite

take care XXX

Charity
mail e-mail: charitysweet@hotmail.co.uk


S.O.C.P.A. , Public order laws , Council Byelaws

22.08.2008 14:59

What worries me is if they have unofficialy relaxed the current restrictions around parliament which i seriously doubt will be longterm is this just to keep us quiet whilst the repeal process is in progress and even if they change this legislation are they not just going to continue to misuse council byelaws and public order legislation to the same effect

Courtenay Rogers


any update?

05.11.2008 01:58

on Charity's case?

reason


Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

London Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

London IMC

Desktop

About | Contact
Mission Statement
Editorial Guidelines
Publish | Help

Search :