Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden is one of the lawyers who pioneered the Protection From Harassment Act (1997), better known as the Stalkers Law, and who realised it's potential in being used to stop protest. Starting with Huntingdon Life Sciences, he has been instrumental in many of the subsequent injunctions including acting for Bayer against anti-genetically modified food campaigners and Oxford University in its bid to stop the campaign against it's new animal laboratory. Campaigners are concerned because the use of the injunctions uses the much weaker civil standard of evidence yet carries a maximum five year penalty for a breach of the injunction.
EDO MBM are am armaments company who are based in Brighton,are one of Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden's clients and have recently been in the High Court seeking an injunction against campaingers who hold regular protests at thier Brighton offices. EDO MBM of Brighton manufacture bomb release mechanisms which are used in Pathfinder missiles attached to F16 fighter planes. Campaigners maintain that the use of these in action in Iraq makes the company complicit in the illegal war there and auxillaries to the war crimes in Iraq where civilians have been targeted.
Comments
Hide the following 13 comments
Lawyer's pet journalist caught by demo
19.05.2005 19:45
If you think that such biased reporting is not acceptable, or that sucking up to a man so devoid of morals he would destroy the right to protest in the pursuit of profit, why not drop her a line at
The Times
News International
1 Pennington Street
London
E1 9XN
Tel: 020 7782 5000 Fax: 020 7488 3242
After all, it is not just the lawyers who need to be held accountable....
GQ
nice one guys
19.05.2005 21:05
edo pixie
Inappropriate behavior
20.05.2005 01:35
However much we may dislike lawyers in general, it is inappropriate to demonstrate against a lawyer based upon the interest whom he or she is representing. Remember, even if the EDO folks were (supposedly) guilty of boiling live babies and serving them up for dinner they would be entitled to legal representation in court.
You aren't dmeonstrating against EDO by this action but against the right of legal representation for those of whom we disaprove.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
Lawyers
20.05.2005 13:19
EDO may well be involved in activities that many would find unpleasant, indeed the Arms Industry is one that is used to help lawyers in their training. For example.
Would you represent a company that made land mines ?
Would you represent a company that made land mines if they were going to be used to protect a third world nation from an aggressive invader ?
Would you represent a company that made land mines if they wre going to be used to protect this country from an aggressive invader ?
Would you represent a company that made land mines if they wre going to be used to protect this country and your familiy tomorrow from an aggressive invader that wanted to rape your wife and kill your children ?
Lawyer
actually quite the opposite
20.05.2005 14:18
this lawyer has been incredibly instrumental in writing these anti-protest laws and pushing for their use against protesters. Lawyers have some discretion of which cases to take or not especially ones as expensive as this guy.
The message was simple stop eroding our rights to protest - EDO is a legitimate protest target. (its funny - but most of the other lawyers in the square seemed to really enjoy the event ... a break from trawling through all those dreary books)
If they were on trial of course they should be represented... but this is a different matter.
rights to protest
Follow up
20.05.2005 15:15
I think this is something the public finds hard to grasp - we do not always like our clients, we do not always agree with their position on issues but we do think they have a right to the best legal representation we can provide. If that means using tctics and procedures that you find unpleasant - sorry tough. You have the right to employ me tomorrow and I will use every part of the law I can to protec or further your interests.
Lawyer
strike 'we can provide', replace 'they can afford'?
20.05.2005 17:52
K Tai
Right to?!
21.05.2005 08:41
Right maybe. Ability, probably not? One law for the rich corportations who can pursue their financial interests in making military equipment; another for ordinary civilians with no financial interest to be able to protest at this way of making money.
If as a laywer you make a speciality of suppressing protest you are going to be employed by some shits with some real financial interest in it... Go figure
bystander
Money buys 'justice'
21.05.2005 09:10
shark
The importance of polite protest!
21.05.2005 12:10
I feel that this protest was justified given the civil rights implications of such injunctions and the activities of EDO. The protest was not as a previous post suggested saying that EDO should not be entitled to legal representation but expressing concern about the increasing use of injunctions to prevent peaceful protest.
I also agree that the legal system is definitely tilted in favour of those with money.
However as a word of caution I would argue that (especially) when protests are targeted against particular individuals we should express our displeasure without resorting to personal insults. Fortunately this particular protest was very good natured.
No more bombs.
The cab-rank is a fiction
23.05.2005 08:32
This conceit is a large part of what gives lawyers such a bad name; and anyway, it's a lie. The truth is that some lawyers work exclusively for corporate clients, for example on M&A work; some specialize in big-ticket libel actions; and some act exclusively for legal-aid criminal defendants. Lawyers *can* choose their clients, and the choices they make are moral choices. The cab-rank is a fiction, and it's perfectly legitimate to hold a lawyer answerable for the cases he chooses fight.
Mr. Demeanour
Logical Targeting?!?!?
23.05.2005 11:32
Jack Carter
e-mail:
jackcarter@hotmail.com
Aims of the protest
24.05.2005 10:39
I agree with the person who wrote about personal liberty of individuals
- thats why the action was done in fancy dress with music and good humour!
The aim of the action was to show some solidarity with the EDO campaign while attempting to raise exactly these questions about who lawyers except cases from.
A press release was sent to all major news outlets - but unless you dress up like superman and hang off nelsons column the corporate media rarely touches most protests.
Legal neutrality is an ideal not a reality.
In this case this lawyer is specialising in restricting protest - using laws that were not originally designed for such things.
In short he has made a career out of big money cases defending large rich institutions and corporations that engage in morally reprehensible acts. This as a number of posts have said illustrates the inequalities in our legal system and the skew produced by our elitist and capitalist system.
Thus I feel that trying to raise our moral objection to the cases he takes is legitimate especially when done in good humour.
If he didn't except this client they would find it harder to hide behind the pro-money British legal system when commiting odious acts such as arms dealing - hopefully they might stop arms dealing! (naieve I know)
Another point was that the whole square was full of lawyers - none of whom were the subject of protest but who came out and cheered and waved at us.
These lawyers clearly enjoyed the experience - and if they take away the message that our civil rights are being eroded by precedents being made by these kind of cases, then maybe they will help do something about it.
protester