After police failed in court today to hold onto conditions that would exclude demonstrators arrested at the May 31st Big Demo from going to protest outside the EDO Arms factory in Brighton, they have now for the first time, used powers under the controversial EDO Interim Injunction to arrest a protestor for breach of its conditions.
Press Release
22:30 pm 15th June 2005
For Immediate Release
FIRST ARREST MADE TO ENFORCE ARMS DEALER'S INJUNCTION
Sussex Police made their first arrest for a breach of the interim injunction inside arms dealers EDO MBM's controversial “exclusion zone” at approximately 4.30 yesterday (June 15th). One man was arrested for allegedley breaching the injunction on a technicality during one of the regular weekly demonstrations.
Police have confirmed that he will be held in custody overnight and brought before Brighton Magistrates in the morning (Thursday June 16th).
There will be a supporters demonstration outside the court at 10.00am
.........................................................
Notes for Journalists.
Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.
The Injunction referred to was served under the1997 Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to protect people from stalkers) and is the first
of its kind directed at activists outside of the animal rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone deemed to be a protestor.
Initially EDO MBM requested a large “exclusion zone” comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate. They and Sussex police also wanted to limit demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused to impose these conditions at the initial hearing.
In his summing up he said, “The right to freedom of
expression is jealously guarded in English law” and consequently refused to impose the requested limits on size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.
EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100 fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon’s Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the “Shock and Awe” campaign in Iraq.
EDO also recently withdrew a threatened libel action against Indymedia over being named as “warmongers”.
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co, a solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They have pioneered to use of injunctions to create large “exclusion zones”. They have secured numerous injunctions against
anti-vivisection and anti-GM protestors.
Campaign against EDO MBM. People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade unionists, academics and students.
The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp.
It’s avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their complicity in war crimes and to remove them from Brighton.
_____________________________________
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
What Is The High Court Injunction About?
15.06.2005 23:39
Harassment Act 1997 . This enables an individual to bring a civil
action in respect of an actual or anticipated course of conduct causing
harassment to another person.
EDO brought this interim injunction under Section 3 of the Act, because breach of an injunction passed under the Act is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. This makes it an "arrestable offence', which confers considerable powers of arrest and search on the police.
For more on "arrestable offences" see:
With most civil injunctions, it is the Claimant's job to enforce it. If
someone breaches the injunction, the Claimant has to go back to court to
apply for committal proceedings against the Defendant, in order to have the
Defendant punished for contempt. The Courts will only punish a Defendant for
contempt, however, if the breach is sufficiently clear and serious.
In the cases of harassment injunctions, the Claimant has the option of enforcing it
by contempt proceedings. But the police can also take action for breach.
This enables the police to threaten, bully and arrest protestors for the
most trivial of breaches, which would never ordinarily be punished for
contempt.
The police use the injunctions as a tool for arrest, search and general
harassment rather than for actual prosecution.
Since April 2003 there have been 19 Harrasment Act injunctions brought against animal rights protestors. Only a handful of prosecutions have been brought for breach of an injunction, and there hasnot been a single conviction.
brief
.
16.06.2005 19:40
.
Protest
17.06.2005 11:01
Protester