i reported here why the socpa legislation governing protest near parliament is dead and buried - 
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404526.html
but this afternoon, police began a new campaign of harassment against brian haw's peace camp
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404526.html but this afternoon, police began a new campaign of harassment against brian haw's peace camp
in a previous indymedia piece ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404526.html) i reported a case summary against barbara tucker that blows a huge hole in socpa legislation and admits that police are no longer able to arrest or prosecute "unauthorised" demonstrations in parliament square
it seems a new campaign of intimidation has begun against the peace camp in parliament square
as reported by an eye witness earlier on indymedia ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404905.html) police visited brian this afternoon. several police emerged from their van and claimed that without a warrant they were going to search the tents in parliament square. they threatened physical force and arrest against anyone trying to impede their search, and when questioned as to the grounds for the search they claimed they were looking for bombs under section 17 of PACE.
this part of the police and criminal evidence (PACE) legislation is mainly about entering premises to search for people who they want to arrest and suchlike, but one sub-clause allows a search "for the purpose of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property". there was no claim of credible information leading to the sudden fear of a bomb, and no such searches were carried out at other recent public events or high-profile political visits. the police carrying out this raid (under the orders of chief inspector springer, who was not present) had no paperwork or warrant, and had no specialist sniffer dogs. nor did they clear the area of members of the public.
brian is currently using a crutch as he is suffering from a bad spell of sciatica, possibly as a result of a previous assault, so he could offer no resistance. in any event he was threatened both with physical force and arrest under section 3. this was thought to be a threat using the criminal law act 1967 which states "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime" although it remains unclear what the actual arrest would have been for!
needless to say, no bombs were found at the peace camp, but before they left, police warned brian that this would now be a monthly occurrence.
presumably police have some information that there will be a monthly threat to life or limb!
i dare say brian will see them in court over this.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404526.html) i reported a case summary against barbara tucker that blows a huge hole in socpa legislation and admits that police are no longer able to arrest or prosecute "unauthorised" demonstrations in parliament square it seems a new campaign of intimidation has begun against the peace camp in parliament square
as reported by an eye witness earlier on indymedia (
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404905.html) police visited brian this afternoon. several police emerged from their van and claimed that without a warrant they were going to search the tents in parliament square. they threatened physical force and arrest against anyone trying to impede their search, and when questioned as to the grounds for the search they claimed they were looking for bombs under section 17 of PACE. this part of the police and criminal evidence (PACE) legislation is mainly about entering premises to search for people who they want to arrest and suchlike, but one sub-clause allows a search "for the purpose of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property". there was no claim of credible information leading to the sudden fear of a bomb, and no such searches were carried out at other recent public events or high-profile political visits. the police carrying out this raid (under the orders of chief inspector springer, who was not present) had no paperwork or warrant, and had no specialist sniffer dogs. nor did they clear the area of members of the public.
brian is currently using a crutch as he is suffering from a bad spell of sciatica, possibly as a result of a previous assault, so he could offer no resistance. in any event he was threatened both with physical force and arrest under section 3. this was thought to be a threat using the criminal law act 1967 which states "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime" although it remains unclear what the actual arrest would have been for!
needless to say, no bombs were found at the peace camp, but before they left, police warned brian that this would now be a monthly occurrence.
presumably police have some information that there will be a monthly threat to life or limb!
i dare say brian will see them in court over this.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Police nonsense
30.07.2008 06:52
The police claim to be searching for bombs which an evil bomber has left in Brian's camp and which he has not noticed. As a fine upstanding citizen Brian would no doubt report any suspicious object he did find.
They will do this once a month.
So all the evil bomber has to do is wait until after the monthly search and then place their bomb.
As usual police claims don't stand up to the simplest of examination.
This is harassment pure and simple. Another attempt by them to drive away politics from Westminster. I hope some friendly legal people offer their services to rebuff the police.
A N Other
PACE codes of practice
30.07.2008 09:13
CODE C- code of practice for the detention,treatment and questioning of persons by police officers.
What needs to be asked is, what section of pace is section 17.
section C 17 covers the search and testing for the presence of a specified class A drugs
page 107 pace s.60(1)(a), s.60A(1) and s.66 (1)) codes of practice A_G
what i think we have here is the police not giving the approiate information, in just sayingsection 17????
The pace book is about 3 books) avaliable in all police stations for consultation by detained people and members of the public to view at any time
Davey
The Met
30.07.2008 10:46
The Met Police making up laws as they go along, to justify their bullying/harassment of peaceful individuals! The loon who decided that an obvious anti war protester (one of the best!) would have anything to do with bombs, needs to be severely reprimanded... they're obviously quite demented!
Panda
PACE Section 17
30.07.2008 17:58
— (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, and without prejudice to any other enactment, a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose—
[...]
(e) of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property.
[...]
(4) The power of search conferred by this section is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose for which the power of entry is exercised."
The relevant code of practice is B which:
"Deals with police powers to search premises and to seize and retain property found on premises and persons."
streetlawyer
With all due respect...
30.07.2008 18:07
WARN
Homepage:
http://westernanimalrights.wordpress.com
Babs...
01.08.2008 14:04
Can you please let me know of any future cases so that I can some.
Thanks muchly...
XXX
Charity
e-mail:
charitysweet@hotmail.co.uk
SOCPA is NOT dead
01.08.2008 18:51
what's the agenda in saying that when it is false? I mean even in the earlier report (link
It is just a case of political decisions not to prosecute in some cases for political expediency.
Brian B
truth & reality
09.08.2008 13:11
the true legal situation is that due to legal challenges that the government are obviously trying to avoid & delay incl:
ie: a) seeking a declaration of incompatibility CO/2460/2008
& b) the return of brian haws display CO/11393/2007
the criminal justice system really can no longer (not that it ever could) legally justify arresting and prosecuting peaceful people under socpa 132-138.
because & while parliament have been - forced - to admit socpa 132-138 is wrong (lacks any "legitimate aim") - which should be enough to see off/ prevent ant arrests/prosecutions - they are delaying repealing - simply because they are stubbornly obsessed with trying to do the impossible and dream up what they have not yet been able to do, a legitimate aim for another arbitrary power of arrest and theft..which simply will not wash.
babs tucker
babs tucker
replies to points raised
09.08.2008 16:46
to brian b - i'm not quite sure what your agenda is, but if the cps is is stating in a court document that they cannot prosecute socpa (132-138) cases, then i think it is perfectly fair to say that socpa is dead, cos there ain't no-one else who is going to prosecute the cases! it's important to spread this word around so that everyone knows, because the police are still threatening people with arrest and prosecution. i'm not sure why you wouldn't want to help?
rikki
e-mail:
rikkiindymedia[AT]gmail(d0t)com
Homepage:
http://www.socpa-movie.blogspot.com
just a note...
10.10.2008 16:31
just in case anyone wanted to know what is really going on with those morons...
XXX
Charity
e-mail:
charitysweet@hotmail.co.uk