Monday saw the Crown Prosecution Service announce that charges would be dropped against 109 activists who occupied Fortnum & Mason on 26 March 2011. On Tuesday, 20 environmental activists had their convictions for attempting to shut down the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station overturned. As well as involving several activists from Oxford, these two cases had something else in common – blatant dishonesty from the police (or maybe the CPS – who can tell the difference?).
Inside Fortum & Masion
Fortnum & Mason
On 26 March, over 150 activists were arrested for entering the Fortum & Mason shop in an action called by UKUncut to protest against the “many super rich individuals and profitable big businesses going out of their way to minimise their tax bills” whilst cuts to all of our public services were going ahead. Chief inspector Claire Clark described the protest as non-violent and “sensible” and gave the activists an assurance that they were not be be arrested. After some faffing, they protesters were led from the store and, ummm, all arrested. Clark has since confirmed that she was told by her commanding officers that she knew they would all be arrested. And she knew this at least 10 minutes before she told them they would not be.
Bindmans, a legal firm with a long history of support people engaged in civil liberty struggles, wrote to the CPS saying "It clearly brings the administration of justice into disrepute if an individual is not able to rely on the clear assurances of the police – and in this case a very high ranking officer – engaged in the policing of a peaceful protest". It would appear that the CPS agrees, to some extent, by announcing that it would not seek the prosecution of 109 of the activists as it was “not in the public interest.”
Thirty people alleged to have been in the protest will, at the time of writing, be prosecuted by the CPS. Thirteen have appeared in court once and pleaded not guilty. The other 17 are due to enter pleas later this month. In a remarkable statement, the prosecution has said that chief inspector Claire Clark telling the activists that they would not be arrested did "not amount to an assurance they would not be arrested". Reports that Clark is currently seeking work for News International are unconfirmed.
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
In April 2009, 114 activists were arrested in a £300,000 operation run by Nottingham police. It was the largest number of pre-emptive arrests ever in the UK. After all of the normal legal shenanigans, 26 people were taken to court for conspiracy charges. Twenty were found guilty after he jury dismissed their claim of lawful defence – that their action would have prevented a larger crime from taking place. The jury seem to made their decisions based on the prosecution argument that the protesters were meagrely seeking publicity.
The trial of the remaining six collapsed in January 2011 when it emerged that police infiltrator, Mark Stone / Kennedy had provided the police with taped recordings of the plans that demonstrated the protesters innocence. It appears that this evidence – available to both the police and the CPS – was not passed on to the defence in clear breech of the legal guidelines “to give lawyers for the accused any evidence that could assist their defence”.
This hiding of evidence that they didn't like, which was not known about during the trial of the first 26 activists, was presented to the court of appeal who said "It is clear that there was a non-disclosure of material which would have been supportive of the defence case advanced at trial.", and overturned the convictions.
On 26 March, over 150 activists were arrested for entering the Fortum & Mason shop in an action called by UKUncut to protest against the “many super rich individuals and profitable big businesses going out of their way to minimise their tax bills” whilst cuts to all of our public services were going ahead. Chief inspector Claire Clark described the protest as non-violent and “sensible” and gave the activists an assurance that they were not be be arrested. After some faffing, they protesters were led from the store and, ummm, all arrested. Clark has since confirmed that she was told by her commanding officers that she knew they would all be arrested. And she knew this at least 10 minutes before she told them they would not be.
Bindmans, a legal firm with a long history of support people engaged in civil liberty struggles, wrote to the CPS saying "It clearly brings the administration of justice into disrepute if an individual is not able to rely on the clear assurances of the police – and in this case a very high ranking officer – engaged in the policing of a peaceful protest". It would appear that the CPS agrees, to some extent, by announcing that it would not seek the prosecution of 109 of the activists as it was “not in the public interest.”
Thirty people alleged to have been in the protest will, at the time of writing, be prosecuted by the CPS. Thirteen have appeared in court once and pleaded not guilty. The other 17 are due to enter pleas later this month. In a remarkable statement, the prosecution has said that chief inspector Claire Clark telling the activists that they would not be arrested did "not amount to an assurance they would not be arrested". Reports that Clark is currently seeking work for News International are unconfirmed.
Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
In April 2009, 114 activists were arrested in a £300,000 operation run by Nottingham police. It was the largest number of pre-emptive arrests ever in the UK. After all of the normal legal shenanigans, 26 people were taken to court for conspiracy charges. Twenty were found guilty after he jury dismissed their claim of lawful defence – that their action would have prevented a larger crime from taking place. The jury seem to made their decisions based on the prosecution argument that the protesters were meagrely seeking publicity.
The trial of the remaining six collapsed in January 2011 when it emerged that police infiltrator, Mark Stone / Kennedy had provided the police with taped recordings of the plans that demonstrated the protesters innocence. It appears that this evidence – available to both the police and the CPS – was not passed on to the defence in clear breech of the legal guidelines “to give lawyers for the accused any evidence that could assist their defence”.
This hiding of evidence that they didn't like, which was not known about during the trial of the first 26 activists, was presented to the court of appeal who said "It is clear that there was a non-disclosure of material which would have been supportive of the defence case advanced at trial.", and overturned the convictions.
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
HA!
20.07.2011 09:14
Even longer history of ambulance chaceing, knowing that they have loads of clients requesting them AT THE SAME PLACE and then letting them rot for fucking hours untill one lawyer...sorry 'legal rep' (ultra basic course in legal studies, not a lawyer) for all of them.....WTF, I hate the "all day breakfast" and this bitch let me stew for hours cos' I was the last on her list....
Went without, got the same result as if I hadnt bothered
They are a waste of time, just get the duty, less showboating and better service.
anon by right
duty solicitors are on the side of the prosecutors
20.07.2011 12:09
Better to be patient in the long run as you are more ;likely to avoid conviction that way.
jailbird
Re: anon by right
20.07.2011 18:49
Every single activist and support group I have ever know recommends not using duty solicitors - a long wait in a cell is horrible, but a short wait followed by an injustice is worse. And I've heard of many stories of the latter, including conversations such as ...
Accused: I didn't do it.
Duty Solicitor: But if you say that and are later found guilty you'll get a higher sentence.
Accused: But I didn't do it.
Duty Solicitor: I know, but it's better to say you did.
It seems the Duty Solicitor's advice is 'if you are accused of something, say you did it' - that's the worst advice possible. I later looked into the background of the Duty Solicitor, and guess what? He was an ex-copper.
Arrested
Go it alone
20.07.2011 22:05
Just something that's worked for me.
arrestee
good advice
21.07.2011 01:21
That's not to say there are not differences, like in any job or profession, some are going to be better than others. The firm I used to work for represented people in police stations and did complaints against the police. But of the people who did this work, I'd only have recommended three out of the five, mainly because they tried hard to win every case, they had some 'edge', if that's the right word. Some reps treat it just as a job and don't try very hard.
pinkolady
Homepage:
http://owlsotherblog.blogspot.com
risky strategy
21.07.2011 10:17
If a solicitor advises you to give a no comment interview, then the jury cannot draw a negative inference from that at trial. On the other hand if you give one without advice and then later present a defence, they can.....
another arrestee
I'm not qualified to answer these legal questions - are you?
21.07.2011 16:55
re: arrestee
> If you're just going to say 'no comment', it's often easier and much much quicker not to get a solicitor at all. If you get charged just call one when you're safely out of the nick.
There might be merit in this. However, last time I was arrested I was not charges - many months of police bail ensued :(
One of my fellow arrestees did not ask from a solicitor, and the legal company told her they could not represent her because of this. The legal company was really useful to me during my bail.
re: another arrestee
> If a solicitor advises you to give a no comment interview, then the jury cannot draw a negative inference from that at trial.
I don't think this is correct, but not 100% sure.
Yet another arrestee
silence in custody
21.07.2011 19:45
but far more importantly, on a legal basis, they find it far more difficult to draw the negative inference (that you're not talking because you have something to hide) than if you give a no comment interview. i'm going to try to explain why but it's not coming out very coherent to be honest .....
no comment is the traditional route of not answering a question but they can claim it's an answer and you've immediately lost your so-called right to silence, even if you consistently answer no comment to every question. in court they can claim you had a chance to speak up and didn't, and if you claim your right to silence they point out that you weren't silent, you responded so why didn't you respond with your defence. your right to silence is literally that, they'll still try to poke holes and it's not cast-iron but it's the most cast-iron way of literally exercising your right to silence.
another thing worth noting is once you accept you are going to speak words, even if you decide only to say no comment, you are playing a difficult game of mental strength with interviewers who are trained to trick no commenters into talking. they have lots and lots of tactics designed to translate a non-helpful answer (to them) into a helpful one (ie evidencial). a lot of people give a general no comment interview, but occasionally answer certain questions, most often your name etc at the start of interview, or to confirm that you understand 'the caution' (where they tell you you may be incriminating yourself by not speaking and ask you to confirm you understand). even answering a simple question like that allows them to claim that you're not MORALLY refusing to answer questions, you're simply selecting which questions would incriminate you if you answered. if you remain silent the entire interview from the moment they press record, they've got nothing on you. and unless they put you up in front of a camera, they're gonna seriously struggle to prove you were in the room while the tape was running.
phew, thank god that's over..
gokwan
re no comment & adverse inference
21.07.2011 22:27
Agree totally with the comments on duty solicitors. While I was in the nick the cops had the solicitor arranged for by my mates swapped with a dodgy duty solicitor. I was advised to admit responsibility for something I could confidently say I hadn't done, but thankfully, I ignored her advice and wasn't even charged in the end.
@
experience
22.07.2011 09:27
Oh Gokwan.."they're gonna seriously struggle to prove you were in the room while the tape was running" er the whole thing is on video, the brief HAS to say who they are and if you are playing that silence is golden game then the pig will just ask the brief to confirm your in the room....there is a time and date stamped record of you going in.....and the place is packed with pigs and jailers...
did you have a nice time at hendon?
Anon by right