16 June 2010
Start time: 14:10pm
Judge: abuse of process application for Charity Sweet:
You handed me a statement this morning which I have read, it has no links with the matters I am dealing with today.
CS: it is are you saying this is just a coincidence? This is the 4th time they have arrived at my house when I have mentioned the name Maria G.
Judge: calm down, calm down, please be quite.
CS: If I can’t take part I will sit where I want.
Judge: I refused the application made yesterday by CS, and indicated that I would read the docs provided by CS and if I considered their to be substance in material I would consider it. I remain of the same view that there is no relevance.
CS asserts that DV prompted by the work of Maria G who is alleges she is an agent provocateur. It is clear on papers provided that since April 2009 BH has disassociated himself from peace strike campaign, and that Maria G should be joined to the defendant list. I said that that was a decision for Claimants to make.
If Maria G is an agent provocateur, then abuse of process application can be made, she has done more than organised the peace campaign.
CS says that this court is corrupt.
There is no relevance for an abuse of process. Application is refused. Application to leave to appeal is also refused.
Jurisdiction issues.
Order of possession- decision is the Mayor is so entitled for reasons which will be delivered in due course in my judgment, it is not my intention to give 2 judgments.
Severance
PH: application for severance against 2 and 3rd d.
1: BH is unique in that he is only person who has ever protested and demonstrated for the length of time. 9yrs. In that time he has become a national institution. Throughout his protest he has been on the grass at PSG.
2: thus, there is not the urgency of requiring him to leave at this particular time. DV protestors came on 1st May and in larger numbers, they should not be there. In those numbers, they are doing something on a different nature. Dealing with DV is a fairly urgent matter and a big pressing issue.
3. Bad feeling between BH and BT and DV protestors that BH feels DV have lowered the tone and they resents them being there.
4. BH has not had proper time to prepare, normal civil trials, service on 26 may we would be nowhere near a trial. He would usually have a matter of months to check facts, allow lawyers to research etc and he has not had that time. To press on now would be obstructive to BH protest as matter is not urgent
J: has he encroached on the gardens. He has not denied he has done so and BT.
PH:
For good reasons he slept on the grass, if he was forced to sleep on the grass it would impair his demonstration. It is a situation where facts and jurisprudence need to be looked at careful. The speed makes it difficult if not impossible.
Art 6 ECHR fair public hearing within a reasonable time. Time lapse is simply not reasonable time and not long enough.
I note that reasonable time is usually about delay.
There is a final point = possible compromise. Not disputed that BH and BT have slept on the grass
In the past there have been compromise between them and Mr Grinter: Pg 180 tb para 12
It seems not impossible that if the matter was put on a lesser track, compromise could come about.
The case is about how much encroachment of the grass is tolerable. ADR rather than lit.
UNDERWOOD:
Severance BH and BT
1. Where issues could be heard together they should be.
2. The Mayor is going to have call his evidence and = weight to be given to public who will use gardens. Injunctive relief could be made without BH being present = would have to be revisited= unworkable.
Factual difference and antagonism between DV and BT and BH.
Urgency? It is at least arguable that having BH ther is an encouragement to others.
More time? Part 55= dealt with expeditiously. He may have more witnesses etc… but its a short period of time.
Compromise= no camping on the garden if BH wants to discuss that b4 judgment fine.
Friend: urgency is called for.
J: as your cases are linked to you associate your
BH and BT have 2 different issues. Authorise demonstrator and unauthorised demonstrator.
DV is being used to punish them the same. They could have followed there own bylaws.
J: if you speak again I will remove u from this point.
PH: he said that the court will need to determine public defence= difficult legal issues.
Kay v London borough lambeth. K was concerned with right to private life.
We are concerned here art 10 and 11. No authority to say they can be relied on in these proceedings.
The factual background is different. That is the reason y it benefits from detailed analyse of the jurisprudence. With DV urgency is trump card with BH it is simply isn’t.
2. interest of other members of the public. Public interest is diff to BH. This is the 1st time GLA have brought this kind of proceedings against BH.
Saving court may well be an illusion as it is difficult to predict what happens either.
BH severally impeded if proceedings are continued.
J: 2 groups in these proceedings- DV and BH/BT and 4th def CS who has associated herself, it is on behalf of BH and BT PH submits that proceedings should be severed. Cs would have been well advised to adopt PH’s submission.
PH submits no sense of urgency in proceedings against Defendants 2 3 and 4 because BH demonstration is well est and lawful and it remains on the pavement and he uses PSG for sleeping purposes.
Ph says bad feelings between BH and DV protestors, and that BH has not had proper time to prepare his defence to this case. Ph points out that the defence is one of reasonable and right to freedom of assembly
Underwood ; says with both there are issues of public law defences and the remit of public law defences.
Right of the public to access the gardens and says that where there are joint issues the proceedings should be tried together unless there are uncanning reasons why.
I agree with that
Bad feeling – not matter to prevent them being heard together-
Issues of insufficient time to prepare- service effected on 26 May- part 55 is that there is a sense of urgency.
Reasonableness and freedom of assembly does not need that much time to prepare.
Willing to hear that evidence that BH wants to say
I am not persuaded that there are Art6 issues
Possible compromise- would prefer if there could be a compromise, but that is a matter for the parties, and could be discussed
Application for severance is refused.
10:30am
Underwood:
See : Macfale
Court can not give anytime, he must make an order for possession, order must be made.
Kay v Lambeth
Art 8 case pg 466- f-g
pg 517
para 36 let h- and para 37
Whatever the conventional human rights the court has no discretion.
Brian haw: Mr. Luba there are additional arguments to make and I will be putting this in writing. Normally the court will only listen to arguments of counsel I will allow you write them out and I will read them out.
Judge: Adjourn 5 mins
15:25pm
Simon Grinter called
Copies to be given of annotated statement to be given to PH.
Simon Grinter statement read out
Pg 185
Pg 57
Pg 61 and pg 65
Smell of urine is very strong. The beds are used as urinals.
Pg 130 para june 2009 not 2010.
Pg 159 collusion of wardens reports. Which has been prepared for the purposes of this hearing.
NOTE to self: Not all defendants have copies of the statements.
Judge: Either the statements are read out and copies of the exhibits are provided or copies are provided over night. - a number of copies be provided tomorrow at 9am outside court.
PH: 2 morning I want o make 2 submissions:
3rd witness statement by BH and BT to be handed up
witness statement requested of Mr Syed Shah
J: Decide between Counsel.
10:30 start tomorrow.
10:15 for counsel.
Start time: 14:10pm
Judge: abuse of process application for Charity Sweet:
You handed me a statement this morning which I have read, it has no links with the matters I am dealing with today.
CS: it is are you saying this is just a coincidence? This is the 4th time they have arrived at my house when I have mentioned the name Maria G.
Judge: calm down, calm down, please be quite.
CS: If I can’t take part I will sit where I want.
Judge: I refused the application made yesterday by CS, and indicated that I would read the docs provided by CS and if I considered their to be substance in material I would consider it. I remain of the same view that there is no relevance.
CS asserts that DV prompted by the work of Maria G who is alleges she is an agent provocateur. It is clear on papers provided that since April 2009 BH has disassociated himself from peace strike campaign, and that Maria G should be joined to the defendant list. I said that that was a decision for Claimants to make.
If Maria G is an agent provocateur, then abuse of process application can be made, she has done more than organised the peace campaign.
CS says that this court is corrupt.
There is no relevance for an abuse of process. Application is refused. Application to leave to appeal is also refused.
Jurisdiction issues.
Order of possession- decision is the Mayor is so entitled for reasons which will be delivered in due course in my judgment, it is not my intention to give 2 judgments.
Severance
PH: application for severance against 2 and 3rd d.
1: BH is unique in that he is only person who has ever protested and demonstrated for the length of time. 9yrs. In that time he has become a national institution. Throughout his protest he has been on the grass at PSG.
2: thus, there is not the urgency of requiring him to leave at this particular time. DV protestors came on 1st May and in larger numbers, they should not be there. In those numbers, they are doing something on a different nature. Dealing with DV is a fairly urgent matter and a big pressing issue.
3. Bad feeling between BH and BT and DV protestors that BH feels DV have lowered the tone and they resents them being there.
4. BH has not had proper time to prepare, normal civil trials, service on 26 may we would be nowhere near a trial. He would usually have a matter of months to check facts, allow lawyers to research etc and he has not had that time. To press on now would be obstructive to BH protest as matter is not urgent
J: has he encroached on the gardens. He has not denied he has done so and BT.
PH:
For good reasons he slept on the grass, if he was forced to sleep on the grass it would impair his demonstration. It is a situation where facts and jurisprudence need to be looked at careful. The speed makes it difficult if not impossible.
Art 6 ECHR fair public hearing within a reasonable time. Time lapse is simply not reasonable time and not long enough.
I note that reasonable time is usually about delay.
There is a final point = possible compromise. Not disputed that BH and BT have slept on the grass
In the past there have been compromise between them and Mr Grinter: Pg 180 tb para 12
It seems not impossible that if the matter was put on a lesser track, compromise could come about.
The case is about how much encroachment of the grass is tolerable. ADR rather than lit.
UNDERWOOD:
Severance BH and BT
1. Where issues could be heard together they should be.
2. The Mayor is going to have call his evidence and = weight to be given to public who will use gardens. Injunctive relief could be made without BH being present = would have to be revisited= unworkable.
Factual difference and antagonism between DV and BT and BH.
Urgency? It is at least arguable that having BH ther is an encouragement to others.
More time? Part 55= dealt with expeditiously. He may have more witnesses etc… but its a short period of time.
Compromise= no camping on the garden if BH wants to discuss that b4 judgment fine.
Friend: urgency is called for.
J: as your cases are linked to you associate your
BH and BT have 2 different issues. Authorise demonstrator and unauthorised demonstrator.
DV is being used to punish them the same. They could have followed there own bylaws.
J: if you speak again I will remove u from this point.
PH: he said that the court will need to determine public defence= difficult legal issues.
Kay v London borough lambeth. K was concerned with right to private life.
We are concerned here art 10 and 11. No authority to say they can be relied on in these proceedings.
The factual background is different. That is the reason y it benefits from detailed analyse of the jurisprudence. With DV urgency is trump card with BH it is simply isn’t.
2. interest of other members of the public. Public interest is diff to BH. This is the 1st time GLA have brought this kind of proceedings against BH.
Saving court may well be an illusion as it is difficult to predict what happens either.
BH severally impeded if proceedings are continued.
J: 2 groups in these proceedings- DV and BH/BT and 4th def CS who has associated herself, it is on behalf of BH and BT PH submits that proceedings should be severed. Cs would have been well advised to adopt PH’s submission.
PH submits no sense of urgency in proceedings against Defendants 2 3 and 4 because BH demonstration is well est and lawful and it remains on the pavement and he uses PSG for sleeping purposes.
Ph says bad feelings between BH and DV protestors, and that BH has not had proper time to prepare his defence to this case. Ph points out that the defence is one of reasonable and right to freedom of assembly
Underwood ; says with both there are issues of public law defences and the remit of public law defences.
Right of the public to access the gardens and says that where there are joint issues the proceedings should be tried together unless there are uncanning reasons why.
I agree with that
Bad feeling – not matter to prevent them being heard together-
Issues of insufficient time to prepare- service effected on 26 May- part 55 is that there is a sense of urgency.
Reasonableness and freedom of assembly does not need that much time to prepare.
Willing to hear that evidence that BH wants to say
I am not persuaded that there are Art6 issues
Possible compromise- would prefer if there could be a compromise, but that is a matter for the parties, and could be discussed
Application for severance is refused.
10:30am
Underwood:
See : Macfale
Court can not give anytime, he must make an order for possession, order must be made.
Kay v Lambeth
Art 8 case pg 466- f-g
pg 517
para 36 let h- and para 37
Whatever the conventional human rights the court has no discretion.
Brian haw: Mr. Luba there are additional arguments to make and I will be putting this in writing. Normally the court will only listen to arguments of counsel I will allow you write them out and I will read them out.
Judge: Adjourn 5 mins
15:25pm
Simon Grinter called
Copies to be given of annotated statement to be given to PH.
Simon Grinter statement read out
Pg 185
Pg 57
Pg 61 and pg 65
Smell of urine is very strong. The beds are used as urinals.
Pg 130 para june 2009 not 2010.
Pg 159 collusion of wardens reports. Which has been prepared for the purposes of this hearing.
NOTE to self: Not all defendants have copies of the statements.
Judge: Either the statements are read out and copies of the exhibits are provided or copies are provided over night. - a number of copies be provided tomorrow at 9am outside court.
PH: 2 morning I want o make 2 submissions:
3rd witness statement by BH and BT to be handed up
witness statement requested of Mr Syed Shah
J: Decide between Counsel.
10:30 start tomorrow.
10:15 for counsel.
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Show us some actual proof
19.06.2010 23:46
No-one who supports the idea that Maria G is an agent provocateur has ever actually provided an ounce of proof.
They have however (and especially Charity Sweet - crazy name - crazy gal) written easily disprovable allegations and outright lies in various posts.
It is a shame that Brian Haw's wonderful work over a decade has been been overshadowed by these ridiculous side issues by this haggle of paranoid and/or provocateur themselves women.
It is a disservice to the iconic protest that Brian has perservered with. It's a non-story.
Is everyone in the Democracy Village supposed to be part of this elaborate conspiracy to get rid of Brian's protest, or are they all pawns of the evil Gallestegui?
I think we should be told!
Cynic
LIBEL
20.06.2010 12:48
Meanwhile of the two groups (as PSPC have chosen to distance themselves from democracy village and Maria G), which one is supporting a broad range of anti-war and social justice campaigns in the square? and which one is doing nothing more than slagging everyone else off and claiming they are police spies? seems strange that the agent provocateurs are the ones doing the campaign whilst the "real" campaigners are the ones doing little else than acting as if they are trying to deliberately discredit the cause.
Sweet Charity
let's face the music maria gallestegui - mrs. agent provocoteur
20.06.2010 16:55
nice to know maria and boris' mates are alive and well in manchester... any relation to griffith williams lj who raised nationwide uproar for his leniency towards a nonce? the idiot who thinks he can destroy civil liberties specifically freedom of assembly art 11 HRA 1998?
Maria is a real two-faced sweetheart aint she...
Do 1 please.
XXX
cs x
e-mail:
charitysweet@hotmail.co.uk
court record 17th june 2010
20.06.2010 18:59
Start time: 10:30am
Pg 118 Trial bundle
-Photo of tents on PSG probably taken 20th May roughly.
Underwood for GLA
Underwood: refers to BH and BT as Camping. BH corrects him and asks him to refer to it as a peace campaign.
SG: nobody at present has a licence
Underwood:
Pg 31 c
No records of the applications on file.
In 2007 BH was removed from the grass.
BH: Violently / unlawfully evicted.
SG: he came back on to the grass in 2009.
Pg: 159- tents on the grass.
J: asks for something in writing to reflect the Mayors position:
Underwood:
Mayor admits that each of the named defendants in proceedings is acting out of a genuine conviction and that each believes that his or her occupation of PSG is justified by that conviction….
So the Mayor does not challenge the genuineness of conviction of every defendant and their belief that they believe they should be there. They do not need to tell us their beliefs.
John Beckly- for Rebecca Hall (RH)
JB: Pg 193 RH Witness statement
Pg 197-8
SG: No evidence that RH has caused damage.
JB: There has to be ongoing maintenance to grass regardless if DV are on grass or not?
SG: damage caused leads to greater maintenance.
JB: Pg 65:
Pg 125
Pg 55 para 32
Tab 19 para 21 (8 lines down) = less than 30 pedestrians use the pavement per hour.
JB: Is his estimation exaggerated? There is a big difference.
Pg 57
Pg 179
Pg 56 para 34 of ws1
18.05.10 – British Tamil Forum – Photos? And video evidence.
Tamil protestors were and did occupy the entire grass.
(MF- not true)
Pg 204- no need for police intervention despite the opposite views.
Pg 194-5 RH statement
Pg 66 para 98.
Pg 5 of letters bundle.
We were not seeking to come to conclusion for RH but for 2 others.
J: but it was a package. Offer to move.
Jon Beckly submissions end: 11:44am
Mr Coverdale submissions: 11:45am
CC: Do you know of Maria G
SG: no, I know of her
CC: Do you know of the peace strike campaign next to Mr Haw.
CC: MG has been there many yrs. Are your saying you have no knowledge of her?
SG: I have not been introduced to her, not meet her, not seen her.
CC: not named as she is present on PSG for 4yrs, but as her demonstration is kept to pavement
SG: Edged blue on plans pg 4 shows the pavement which is not within GLA controlled land.
CC: Why do you make distinction between some people - as protestors, some as public and some not mentioned at all? Why are some things focussed on certain people and not others?
SG: if MG is on GLA land then see is one of the persons unknown.
J: yes all defendants from 5 -19 have asked to be tried.
CC: in your description Democracy Village and public distinction is made. There are a number of people using Democracy Village which has increased and Democracy Village has become an attraction since DV protestors have been present. You are saying that Democracy Village has turned people away, but actually know there have been more people visiting PSG than ever before.
SG: these proceedings are about those camping on the site not against those using the site, its about breaching the bylaws and those who do not have authorisations.
End 12:10
Josh Dunn: start 12:11am
There is no crossing for the public- I want to make an application for a crossing to in place as it is there duty to facilitate the use of PSG- there is currently no means of safe crossing to PSG.
CCTV evidence? Would like a copy- it would help show the actual goings on in PSG.
SG: GLA does not have any CCTV control of that area.
End: 12:25
Dirk:
Start: 12:26
End: 12:30
Friend:
Start: 12:31
F: I do not fit in your form, would you ever approve it? I have no liability insurance; I have no address- would you approve my application?
J: friend’s question is clear- he can’t obtain public liability insurance, he has no address and no money- would his application be approved.
SG: it’s unlikely
J: I would say it’s more than unlikely that his application would not be approved.
Friend: so it’s a waste of time me filling in form the?
SG: Probably
Friend: exactly
J: any evidence that any defendants have committed any breach of bylaws other than sleeping on PSG grass.
SG: No, there is Enforcement notices served against BH and BT for breach of bylaws- and Prof Knight for bringing engines on the PSG.
End:12:40
Mr Kinney:12:41
SG: there is no pedestrian crossing- I explained that I wait for the lights to turn red by Nelson Mandela statute and then I cross admittedly in front of stopped traffic, but then you can cross as the other cars are driving.
Mr Kinney: it’s not practical is it?
SG: no, but there are ways to get across.
Mr Kinney: Pg 59 Para 53
Reference: to 1st May service
At 5:30am I woke up on 2nd May 2010, and I saw the service taking place.
J: can you comment on that?
SG: I cannot comment, I think they were served on 1st May 2010, they may have been served on 2 May 2010.
End: 12:55
Prof Knight
Start: 12:56
Prof K: So it is correct that PSG will be fenced off iif we are successfully removed?
SG: need to do cleaning on paved areas and grass area. So the grass will be fenced off and grassed areas will be replaced
Prof Knight: so the grass will be fenced off and the public will be denied access for a considerable period of time.
PK: did u noticed a fenced off area in sq by the welcome desk
Corner nearest to big Ben 6 days of fenced off area- which has been there for 6 days.
SG:
No
PK: that is amazing.
13:00 break
Start 14:00pm
PK: Para 18 pg 53
Pg 173 – shows the engines
Heritage wardens to enforce the bylaws, make requests to leave
SG: if they stay they will be served an enforcement letter.
Choice of letters and photos can u say that is a balanced assessment of what is happening in PSG
SG: yes
Peter Phoenix:
14:20pm
PP: I attended the liaison meeting, RH, Jan and Paul Ridge and Chris Harris where the agreement was reached.
SG: No agreement reached. The meeting was fixed to explore to interim arrangement, but no consent was given.
PP: what was the difference between arrangement and agreement?
SG: Not sure there is a difference.
PP: That is my point.
PP: condition was meet that 3 people who came could speak on behalf of the whole village
Yes- as I said this morning.
PP: minimise infrastructure, big tent removed, and kitchen facilities were removed in accordance with your conditions.
SG: there has been liaison but not much movement on camp- reduce 15 tents, and stay off the grass.
PP: Were the interim arrangements discussed with the Mayor
SG: The Mayor was aware that we would have a meeting. Mayor was aware we would have discussion to seek to ltd further damage, not aware we would suggest North West corner.
PP: Where did this proposal come from?
SG: Mr Harris said he was going to have meeting- and I was happy with that.
PP: can I request the minutes of the meeting. As it was agreed at the end of the meeting, that the interim arrangement was agreed and satisfactory allowed us to stay, and we have complied with your requests.
SG: No mins, I have not seen any mins. –
Mr Foresly: Para 5 d of 2nd Order- re disclosure.
PH: I would like these notes to be disclosed – mins from meeting.
Pg 74 tb: para 6- only 1 event per day- do you think this should be changed?
SG: That is GLA policy.
J: don’t answer that
PP: would 1 person with a table be able to bring some forms and protest?
SG: they would need to get authority and go through application process, we would need to know in advance.
PP: during meeting we discussed that we would have some1 walk round and risk assessment?
SG: yes
PP: Monday health and safety officer came round and conducted the evaluation.
PP: we requested regular meetings are you aware of that
SG: that has not happened but yes you asked for it.
PP: you asked us to reduce it to 15 tents and we have- why did he reduce it to 15?
SG: 15 tents on Trag sq in 2005- Mr Harris must have agreed to it and thought it was
PP: my licence has not expired
SG: we have not given you a licence
PP: I beg to differ
PP: cost of insurance
SG: not sure- specialist events
J: would be costly
PP: so it would prohibit the less fortunate with minimal funds.
PP: at the meeting RH asked for a licence.
SG: You did not fill out our form but we took the letter from Bindmans as your application- The mayor is not against protest; he is concerned about the breach of the bylaws.
J: another 7 mins please and that’s it.
Letter of 24th May GLA response pg93 set out authorities decisions on behalf of RH and others for permission to camp on PSG and amounts to refusal.
15:10pm end stopped by judge
PH: Start 15:27pm
PH: How much/ what % of your work is concerned with PSG.
SG: 25% of my work
PH: Does it involve you personally to visits PSG?
SG: I have a team, but I visit also.
PH: The policy of the sq is laid down by the Mayor or the assembly?
SG: The policy of the sq is laid down by the Mayor not the assembly
PH: at what level were they approved? Who makes them actual?
SG: they are drawn up and ultimately the Mayor gives his signature
PH: when did you start your role?
SG: Aug 2009 I came into this role.
PH: so you could not give personal evidence about b4 2009
SG: no
PH: how could the guidelines be changed?
J: he applies the guidelines
Ph: would it be open to him to recommend changes
SG: yes I can recommend- I have good understanding of authority- I have worked for GLA for 10 yrs
PH: who looks at applications?
SG: Applications are looked at by events lettings officer when an application is made. I don’t personally approve all apps but I am aware of them.
I have 2 events and lettings officer and they report to an amenities officer who reports to me.
SG: the guidelines are applied uniformly to all applicants
Pg 54 para 28
No date stamp on photo so can’t say for sure the date of photo
Pg 56
PH: does GLA accept that this is a particularly appropriate place to protest
SG: PSG- yes
PH: para 96 pg 66
You refer to concerns regarding Winston Churchill- I ask, could be that it’s a state event unconnected to BH protest, so it would be
SG: no it was not related to BH
Para 101 in your witness statement = Not correct
Para93 2nd line I attach reports from eve standard form village,… exhibit pg 120 Maria G
PH: So you did have her name so why is she not a defendant?
Ph: my client is concerned that MG is playing agent provocateur role relation to DV protesters and the fact that her name is not d even though her name is known
PH: Who took the decision as who are named defendants?
SG: GLA team
PH: Including yourself
SG: Yes
PH: were there any discussion about MG being Defendant
SG: No
J: interrupts
Ph: he is the policy making behind the lawyers
J: she has not been joined and that is the position. Move on.
Ph: pg 131 para 8- 2nd statement
Pg 160- photo exhibited- it is clear there are some intrusion onto the grass.
SG: Yes
PH: I looked at your plan, you have given evidence that edging stone is also GLA land
PH: what harm does cause if one is on the edging stone?
SG: it is untidy if nothing else.
PH: so there is no question that you would tolerate a single bed size of encroachment onto the edging?
SG: No all GLA bed to be cleared.
Judge: CS has left so Underwood revisit the case
Underwood: no sir
Judge: Mon 14:00 defendant’s cases
1st defendant and then other defendants to follow.
PH: application- 1. objects to attachment of various statements and 2. records to from heritage wardens
Mr Syed Shah pg 135
I had proposed with Mr Underwood some redactions which were agreed-
There are other matters they don’t agree with-
I want to ask for Mr Shah to attend or for the statement to be withdrawn- they deny that Mr Shah ever told then to leave the sq.
(All denied note passed up)
J: Syed Shah to be called or memo removed
BH: it is a memo not a witness statement
PH: Pg 160 Trial Bundle
And end pg 169.
Pg 190 – 190 a-b
Syed Shah gives of impression of aggressive behaviour
Recognise the issue as to weigh, but my clients feel they are prejudice
Underwood: discretion of judge. BH cannot not call a witness to which we rely on… the m case on this is that as of June 2007 pg 31 c at that point BH did not have authority to be on garden and that he should seek auth and he did not.
It is common ground that he was removed from the ground in 2007. See bH ws
There is not record of BH encroaching on ground bête 07-08 and not record of BH in Oct to Nov.
J: BH does not deny he has not used the garden- am I required to investigate bad manners of BH or BT
Ph: it would lighten the tone.
J: it does mean that the enquiries are on a very narrow issue.
Ph: why were they put in then? -
J: I can assure BH that they will not influence me as to his character.
END 16:07
court reporter
court report 17th june 2010
20.06.2010 19:03
Start time: 10:30am
Pg 118 Trial bundle
-Photo of tents on PSG probably taken 20th May roughly.
Underwood for GLA
Underwood: refers to BH and BT as Camping. BH corrects him and asks him to refer to it as a peace campaign.
SG: nobody at present has a licence
Underwood:
Pg 31 c
No records of the applications on file.
In 2007 BH was removed from the grass.
BH: Violently / unlawfully evicted.
SG: he came back on to the grass in 2009.
Pg: 159- tents on the grass.
J: asks for something in writing to reflect the Mayors position:
Underwood:
Mayor admits that each of the named defendants in proceedings is acting out of a genuine conviction and that each believes that his or her occupation of PSG is justified by that conviction….
So the Mayor does not challenge the genuineness of conviction of every defendant and their belief that they believe they should be there. They do not need to tell us their beliefs.
John Beckly- for Rebecca Hall (RH)
JB: Pg 193 RH Witness statement
Pg 197-8
SG: No evidence that RH has caused damage.
JB: There has to be ongoing maintenance to grass regardless if DV are on grass or not?
SG: damage caused leads to greater maintenance.
JB: Pg 65:
Pg 125
Pg 55 para 32
Tab 19 para 21 (8 lines down) = less than 30 pedestrians use the pavement per hour.
JB: Is his estimation exaggerated? There is a big difference.
Pg 57
Pg 179
Pg 56 para 34 of ws1
18.05.10 – British Tamil Forum – Photos? And video evidence.
Tamil protestors were and did occupy the entire grass.
(MF- not true)
Pg 204- no need for police intervention despite the opposite views.
Pg 194-5 RH statement
Pg 66 para 98.
Pg 5 of letters bundle.
We were not seeking to come to conclusion for RH but for 2 others.
J: but it was a package. Offer to move.
Jon Beckly submissions end: 11:44am
Mr Coverdale submissions: 11:45am
CC: Do you know of Maria G
SG: no, I know of her
CC: Do you know of the peace strike campaign next to Mr Haw.
CC: MG has been there many yrs. Are your saying you have no knowledge of her?
SG: I have not been introduced to her, not meet her, not seen her.
CC: not named as she is present on PSG for 4yrs, but as her demonstration is kept to pavement
SG: Edged blue on plans pg 4 shows the pavement which is not within GLA controlled land.
CC: Why do you make distinction between some people - as protestors, some as public and some not mentioned at all? Why are some things focussed on certain people and not others?
SG: if MG is on GLA land then see is one of the persons unknown.
J: yes all defendants from 5 -19 have asked to be tried.
CC: in your description Democracy Village and public distinction is made. There are a number of people using Democracy Village which has increased and Democracy Village has become an attraction since DV protestors have been present. You are saying that Democracy Village has turned people away, but actually know there have been more people visiting PSG than ever before.
SG: these proceedings are about those camping on the site not against those using the site, its about breaching the bylaws and those who do not have authorisations.
End 12:10
Josh Dunn: start 12:11am
There is no crossing for the public- I want to make an application for a crossing to in place as it is there duty to facilitate the use of PSG- there is currently no means of safe crossing to PSG.
CCTV evidence? Would like a copy- it would help show the actual goings on in PSG.
SG: GLA does not have any CCTV control of that area.
End: 12:25
Dirk:
Start: 12:26
End: 12:30
Friend:
Start: 12:31
F: I do not fit in your form, would you ever approve it? I have no liability insurance; I have no address- would you approve my application?
J: friend’s question is clear- he can’t obtain public liability insurance, he has no address and no money- would his application be approved.
SG: it’s unlikely
J: I would say it’s more than unlikely that his application would not be approved.
Friend: so it’s a waste of time me filling in form the?
SG: Probably
Friend: exactly
J: any evidence that any defendants have committed any breach of bylaws other than sleeping on PSG grass.
SG: No, there is Enforcement notices served against BH and BT for breach of bylaws- and Prof Knight for bringing engines on the PSG.
End:12:40
Mr Kinney:12:41
SG: there is no pedestrian crossing- I explained that I wait for the lights to turn red by Nelson Mandela statute and then I cross admittedly in front of stopped traffic, but then you can cross as the other cars are driving.
Mr Kinney: it’s not practical is it?
SG: no, but there are ways to get across.
Mr Kinney: Pg 59 Para 53
Reference: to 1st May service
At 5:30am I woke up on 2nd May 2010, and I saw the service taking place.
J: can you comment on that?
SG: I cannot comment, I think they were served on 1st May 2010, they may have been served on 2 May 2010.
End: 12:55
Prof Knight
Start: 12:56
Prof K: So it is correct that PSG will be fenced off iif we are successfully removed?
SG: need to do cleaning on paved areas and grass area. So the grass will be fenced off and grassed areas will be replaced
Prof Knight: so the grass will be fenced off and the public will be denied access for a considerable period of time.
PK: did u noticed a fenced off area in sq by the welcome desk
Corner nearest to big Ben 6 days of fenced off area- which has been there for 6 days.
SG:
No
PK: that is amazing.
13:00 break
Start 14:00pm
PK: Para 18 pg 53
Pg 173 – shows the engines
Heritage wardens to enforce the bylaws, make requests to leave
SG: if they stay they will be served an enforcement letter.
Choice of letters and photos can u say that is a balanced assessment of what is happening in PSG
SG: yes
Peter Phoenix:
14:20pm
PP: I attended the liaison meeting, RH, Jan and Paul Ridge and Chris Harris where the agreement was reached.
SG: No agreement reached. The meeting was fixed to explore to interim arrangement, but no consent was given.
PP: what was the difference between arrangement and agreement?
SG: Not sure there is a difference.
PP: That is my point.
PP: condition was meet that 3 people who came could speak on behalf of the whole village
Yes- as I said this morning.
PP: minimise infrastructure, big tent removed, and kitchen facilities were removed in accordance with your conditions.
SG: there has been liaison but not much movement on camp- reduce 15 tents, and stay off the grass.
PP: Were the interim arrangements discussed with the Mayor
SG: The Mayor was aware that we would have a meeting. Mayor was aware we would have discussion to seek to ltd further damage, not aware we would suggest North West corner.
PP: Where did this proposal come from?
SG: Mr Harris said he was going to have meeting- and I was happy with that.
PP: can I request the minutes of the meeting. As it was agreed at the end of the meeting, that the interim arrangement was agreed and satisfactory allowed us to stay, and we have complied with your requests.
SG: No mins, I have not seen any mins. –
Mr Foresly: Para 5 d of 2nd Order- re disclosure.
PH: I would like these notes to be disclosed – mins from meeting.
Pg 74 tb: para 6- only 1 event per day- do you think this should be changed?
SG: That is GLA policy.
J: don’t answer that
PP: would 1 person with a table be able to bring some forms and protest?
SG: they would need to get authority and go through application process, we would need to know in advance.
PP: during meeting we discussed that we would have some1 walk round and risk assessment?
SG: yes
PP: Monday health and safety officer came round and conducted the evaluation.
PP: we requested regular meetings are you aware of that
SG: that has not happened but yes you asked for it.
PP: you asked us to reduce it to 15 tents and we have- why did he reduce it to 15?
SG: 15 tents on Trag sq in 2005- Mr Harris must have agreed to it and thought it was
PP: my licence has not expired
SG: we have not given you a licence
PP: I beg to differ
PP: cost of insurance
SG: not sure- specialist events
J: would be costly
PP: so it would prohibit the less fortunate with minimal funds.
PP: at the meeting RH asked for a licence.
SG: You did not fill out our form but we took the letter from Bindmans as your application- The mayor is not against protest; he is concerned about the breach of the bylaws.
J: another 7 mins please and that’s it.
Letter of 24th May GLA response pg93 set out authorities decisions on behalf of RH and others for permission to camp on PSG and amounts to refusal.
15:10pm end stopped by judge
PH: Start 15:27pm
PH: How much/ what % of your work is concerned with PSG.
SG: 25% of my work
PH: Does it involve you personally to visits PSG?
SG: I have a team, but I visit also.
PH: The policy of the sq is laid down by the Mayor or the assembly?
SG: The policy of the sq is laid down by the Mayor not the assembly
PH: at what level were they approved? Who makes them actual?
SG: they are drawn up and ultimately the Mayor gives his signature
PH: when did you start your role?
SG: Aug 2009 I came into this role.
PH: so you could not give personal evidence about b4 2009
SG: no
PH: how could the guidelines be changed?
J: he applies the guidelines
Ph: would it be open to him to recommend changes
SG: yes I can recommend- I have good understanding of authority- I have worked for GLA for 10 yrs
PH: who looks at applications?
SG: Applications are looked at by events lettings officer when an application is made. I don’t personally approve all apps but I am aware of them.
I have 2 events and lettings officer and they report to an amenities officer who reports to me.
SG: the guidelines are applied uniformly to all applicants
Pg 54 para 28
No date stamp on photo so can’t say for sure the date of photo
Pg 56
PH: does GLA accept that this is a particularly appropriate place to protest
SG: PSG- yes
PH: para 96 pg 66
You refer to concerns regarding Winston Churchill- I ask, could be that it’s a state event unconnected to BH protest, so it would be
SG: no it was not related to BH
Para 101 in your witness statement = Not correct
Para93 2nd line I attach reports from eve standard form village,… exhibit pg 120 Maria G
PH: So you did have her name so why is she not a defendant?
Ph: my client is concerned that MG is playing agent provocateur role relation to DV protesters and the fact that her name is not d even though her name is known
PH: Who took the decision as who are named defendants?
SG: GLA team
PH: Including yourself
SG: Yes
PH: were there any discussion about MG being Defendant
SG: No
J: interrupts
Ph: he is the policy making behind the lawyers
J: she has not been joined and that is the position. Move on.
Ph: pg 131 para 8- 2nd statement
Pg 160- photo exhibited- it is clear there are some intrusion onto the grass.
SG: Yes
PH: I looked at your plan, you have given evidence that edging stone is also GLA land
PH: what harm does cause if one is on the edging stone?
SG: it is untidy if nothing else.
PH: so there is no question that you would tolerate a single bed size of encroachment onto the edging?
SG: No all GLA bed to be cleared.
Judge: CS has left so Underwood revisit the case
Underwood: no sir
Judge: Mon 14:00 defendant’s cases
1st defendant and then other defendants to follow.
PH: application- 1. objects to attachment of various statements and 2. records to from heritage wardens
Mr Syed Shah pg 135
I had proposed with Mr Underwood some redactions which were agreed-
There are other matters they don’t agree with-
I want to ask for Mr Shah to attend or for the statement to be withdrawn- they deny that Mr Shah ever told then to leave the sq.
(All denied note passed up)
J: Syed Shah to be called or memo removed
BH: it is a memo not a witness statement
PH: Pg 160 Trial Bundle
And end pg 169.
Pg 190 – 190 a-b
Syed Shah gives of impression of aggressive behaviour
Recognise the issue as to weigh, but my clients feel they are prejudice
Underwood: discretion of judge. BH cannot not call a witness to which we rely on… the m case on this is that as of June 2007 pg 31 c at that point BH did not have authority to be on garden and that he should seek auth and he did not.
It is common ground that he was removed from the ground in 2007. See bH ws
There is not record of BH encroaching on ground bête 07-08 and not record of BH in Oct to Nov.
J: BH does not deny he has not used the garden- am I required to investigate bad manners of BH or BT
Ph: it would lighten the tone.
J: it does mean that the enquiries are on a very narrow issue.
Ph: why were they put in then? -
J: I can assure BH that they will not influence me as to his character.
END 16:07
court reporter
Fantasy Land
20.06.2010 22:10
Sally Mexican
sont delete charity's postings and comments
21.06.2010 16:17
shame that the once heroic Brian Haw is allowing himself to be tarred with the same brush
speak out
Is it actually important?
21.06.2010 21:45
bastard
Many questions have been raised about the defendants in this trial
22.06.2010 07:13
Caz
hyprocrisy village really is "controlled opposition"
22.06.2010 21:15
gallestegui started the village but a) while she happily blabbed to the press about being the organizer b) the gla who as their own bundle shows knew her name before they brought proceedings that she then ducked out of - refused to name her as a defendant - because c) while she can quack away all she likes on a website and in p.square - (unlike brian haw who has spent days sitting in court having his time wasted because of the witch) gallestegui couldnt give a witness statement, stand on a witness stand and be cross examined about what she has really been doing..
gallestegui 'facilitated' camerons roadshow complete with circus tents and clowns to get rid of brian haws campaign. it's that simple.
brian haws been in court - gallestegui hasn't.
brian and babs were on the grass pre 1st may 2010 & gallestegui/this government didnt want brian's campaign ....growing on the grass....
hypocrisy village is bog standard controlled opposition - the rest of the world gets it - the sheer numbers of drunks and druggies they 'invite' are a giveaway.
certainly not anyone from hypocrisy village/troll town