FAIRFORD COACH ACTION - Phone Jane Laporte on 07817 483 167, Jesse Schust on 07814 587 361 or Zoe Young on 07931 316 970 or email 
press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 18/03/04
'COACH-NAPPED' PROTESTORS TO APPEAL HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Anti-war protestors have today launched an appeal against a judgement which ruled that the police acted lawfully in turning them away from a demonstration at RAF Fairford last March.
The coach passengers won a landmark victory in last month's High Court judgement, which ruled that the police had acted unlawfully and breached their human rights by detaining them on their way to an anti-war demonstration.
Although the judges ruled that the detention was unlawful, they also ruled that it was not unlawful for the police to turn the passengers away from the demonstration. The ruling as it stands means that any group of people could be turned away from a demonstration without evidence and based solely on the opinion of a senior police officer. Helen Wickham, one of the passengers, said, "To be sure of reaching a demonstration, I would have to be psychic and know what's going on in the mind of a senior police officer."
The passengers contend that the police's actions in turning them away were not lawful under common law powers and violated their freedom of expression and assembly. They have decided to go ahead with an appeal.
The judges' ruling on turning away was, in part, based on Moss v McLachlan, the case of striking miners arrested while trying to reach a colliery. In the 20th anniversary of the miners' strike, the protestors hope that the Court of Appeal will find the Moss ruling incompatible with domestic law following the adoption of the Human Rights Act in October 2000.
The protestors' case concerns an incident last March, when they and their coaches were searched for nearly two hours and forced back to London under a heavy police escort, "to prevent a breach of the peace." The police argued that the protestors were "well-armed". However, giving judgement, Lord Justice May commented that, "for practical purposes none of the articles seized were to be regarded as offensive. Two pairs of scissors would not make much impression on the perimeter fencing of the air base."
Jesse Schust, a legal observer on the day, said, "The possibility that the war on Iraq was illegal adds an extra dimension to our case. It would be particularly ironic if the police overstepped their powers in order to prevent us going to a lawful demonstration against an illegal war."
The case is being supported by Amnesty International and Liberty. The detained coach passengers are prepared to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if UK courts fail to uphold their human rights.
For more information on Fairford Coach Action, phone Jane Laporte on 07817 483 167 or Jesse Schust on 07814 587 361 or e-mail press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
----------------------------------------------------------
Notes for Journalists
1. Fairford Coach Action is the name of the group of about 60 passengers who have collectively decided to pursue a Judicial Review case against the police's actions on 22nd March 2003. Full background information is available on the website. Visit the site for links to the full judgement, related web articles, and testimonial statements.
http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/
2. On 22nd March 2003, three days after the start of the US/UK war on Iraq, a demonstration, 'Flowers for Fairford', organised by the Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors (GWI), attracted over 3,000 protestors to the airbase. Local groups organised transport to Fairford from 37 locations across the UK. One other coach (from Swindon) was also turned back by the police.
3. American B-52 planes flew from RAF Fairford airbase to bomb Baghdad (see http://www.fairfordpeacewatch.com/ ) and Fairford was the site of excessive policing during the war on Iraq. Within 52 days (from 6 March 2003), police conducted anti-terror searches on 2,132 occasions in the vicinity of RAF Fairford. GWI, Berkshire CIA and Liberty have issued a dossier showing how stop and search powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 were misused by police in Gloucestershire. For the report "Casualty of War - 8 weeks of counter-terrorism in rural England" see http://www.gwi.org.uk/ and http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ The Government estimated the added cost of policing RAF Fairford was £6.9 million. The airbase continues to be upgraded for use by US Stealth (B2) Bombers, greatly expanding the US capacity to "invisibly" deploy tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the world within hours. Further info at http://www.gwi.org.uk/ and
http://www.atkinsglobal.com/wsainternet/skills/design/sectors/aviationdefence/jfsiraffairford/
4. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000. It requires the police and other public authorities to avoid breaching key European Convention Human Rights Articles save where legislation makes this impossible. Amongst the key rights are Article 5 (deprivation of liberty must be justified in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and on one of the five grounds listed in paragraph (1) of the Article), Article 10 (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).
5. At common law a constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he or she reasonably believes will commit a breach of the peace in the immediate future, even though at the time of the arrest such person has not committed any breach. This power is subject to a number of strict restrictions, however: the belief must relate to an act or threatened act harming any person or, in his presence, his property, or which puts a person in fear of such harm; the belief must relate to the likely actions of the particular individual or individuals against whom the power is used; and when the particular individual is acting lawfully at the time the power is used, the threat of his committing a breach of the peace must be sufficiently real and imminent to justify the use of such a draconian power.
6. The facts of Moss v McLachlan (1985) IRLR 76 occurred during the 1984 miners' strike. The case was brought by four striking miners who were travelling in a convoy of vehicles on the M1 in Nottinghamshire. They were stopped by police at a junction and required to turn back. The police officer doing this stated that he had reason to fear a breach of the peace if they continued to the pits, and that he had a duty at common law to prevent a breach of the peace. The appellants attempted to continue and were arrested on the ground that if they proceeded the police feared a breach of the peace at one of the collieries. The miners were convicted by magistrates of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.
7. The main defendant in the case is The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary; the two interested parties are the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police and the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police.
8. The Fairford Coach case was mentioned in Liberty's dossier on the policing at RAF Fairford, and the case is expected to appear in Amnesty International's annual report on Human Rights in the UK.
9. Interviews with passengers from the coaches can be arranged (please enquire - see contact details above). Dramatic, high-quality, digital video footage and photographs are also available. Permission to use them will be granted on a case-by-case basis (rates vary). Contact Zoe Young on 07931 316 970.
10. The solicitor representing the case, John Halford, can be contacted at Bindman & Partners on 020 7833 4433.
press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 18/03/04
'COACH-NAPPED' PROTESTORS TO APPEAL HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Anti-war protestors have today launched an appeal against a judgement which ruled that the police acted lawfully in turning them away from a demonstration at RAF Fairford last March.
The coach passengers won a landmark victory in last month's High Court judgement, which ruled that the police had acted unlawfully and breached their human rights by detaining them on their way to an anti-war demonstration.
Although the judges ruled that the detention was unlawful, they also ruled that it was not unlawful for the police to turn the passengers away from the demonstration. The ruling as it stands means that any group of people could be turned away from a demonstration without evidence and based solely on the opinion of a senior police officer. Helen Wickham, one of the passengers, said, "To be sure of reaching a demonstration, I would have to be psychic and know what's going on in the mind of a senior police officer."
The passengers contend that the police's actions in turning them away were not lawful under common law powers and violated their freedom of expression and assembly. They have decided to go ahead with an appeal.
The judges' ruling on turning away was, in part, based on Moss v McLachlan, the case of striking miners arrested while trying to reach a colliery. In the 20th anniversary of the miners' strike, the protestors hope that the Court of Appeal will find the Moss ruling incompatible with domestic law following the adoption of the Human Rights Act in October 2000.
The protestors' case concerns an incident last March, when they and their coaches were searched for nearly two hours and forced back to London under a heavy police escort, "to prevent a breach of the peace." The police argued that the protestors were "well-armed". However, giving judgement, Lord Justice May commented that, "for practical purposes none of the articles seized were to be regarded as offensive. Two pairs of scissors would not make much impression on the perimeter fencing of the air base."
Jesse Schust, a legal observer on the day, said, "The possibility that the war on Iraq was illegal adds an extra dimension to our case. It would be particularly ironic if the police overstepped their powers in order to prevent us going to a lawful demonstration against an illegal war."
The case is being supported by Amnesty International and Liberty. The detained coach passengers are prepared to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if UK courts fail to uphold their human rights.
For more information on Fairford Coach Action, phone Jane Laporte on 07817 483 167 or Jesse Schust on 07814 587 361 or e-mail
press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
----------------------------------------------------------
Notes for Journalists
1. Fairford Coach Action is the name of the group of about 60 passengers who have collectively decided to pursue a Judicial Review case against the police's actions on 22nd March 2003. Full background information is available on the website. Visit the site for links to the full judgement, related web articles, and testimonial statements.
http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/ 2. On 22nd March 2003, three days after the start of the US/UK war on Iraq, a demonstration, 'Flowers for Fairford', organised by the Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors (GWI), attracted over 3,000 protestors to the airbase. Local groups organised transport to Fairford from 37 locations across the UK. One other coach (from Swindon) was also turned back by the police.
3. American B-52 planes flew from RAF Fairford airbase to bomb Baghdad (see
http://www.fairfordpeacewatch.com/ ) and Fairford was the site of excessive policing during the war on Iraq. Within 52 days (from 6 March 2003), police conducted anti-terror searches on 2,132 occasions in the vicinity of RAF Fairford. GWI, Berkshire CIA and Liberty have issued a dossier showing how stop and search powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 were misused by police in Gloucestershire. For the report "Casualty of War - 8 weeks of counter-terrorism in rural England" see http://www.gwi.org.uk/ and http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ The Government estimated the added cost of policing RAF Fairford was £6.9 million. The airbase continues to be upgraded for use by US Stealth (B2) Bombers, greatly expanding the US capacity to "invisibly" deploy tactical nuclear weapons anywhere in the world within hours. Further info at http://www.gwi.org.uk/ and http://www.atkinsglobal.com/wsainternet/skills/design/sectors/aviationdefence/jfsiraffairford/ 4. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000. It requires the police and other public authorities to avoid breaching key European Convention Human Rights Articles save where legislation makes this impossible. Amongst the key rights are Article 5 (deprivation of liberty must be justified in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and on one of the five grounds listed in paragraph (1) of the Article), Article 10 (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).
5. At common law a constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he or she reasonably believes will commit a breach of the peace in the immediate future, even though at the time of the arrest such person has not committed any breach. This power is subject to a number of strict restrictions, however: the belief must relate to an act or threatened act harming any person or, in his presence, his property, or which puts a person in fear of such harm; the belief must relate to the likely actions of the particular individual or individuals against whom the power is used; and when the particular individual is acting lawfully at the time the power is used, the threat of his committing a breach of the peace must be sufficiently real and imminent to justify the use of such a draconian power.
6. The facts of Moss v McLachlan (1985) IRLR 76 occurred during the 1984 miners' strike. The case was brought by four striking miners who were travelling in a convoy of vehicles on the M1 in Nottinghamshire. They were stopped by police at a junction and required to turn back. The police officer doing this stated that he had reason to fear a breach of the peace if they continued to the pits, and that he had a duty at common law to prevent a breach of the peace. The appellants attempted to continue and were arrested on the ground that if they proceeded the police feared a breach of the peace at one of the collieries. The miners were convicted by magistrates of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.
7. The main defendant in the case is The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary; the two interested parties are the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police and the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police.
8. The Fairford Coach case was mentioned in Liberty's dossier on the policing at RAF Fairford, and the case is expected to appear in Amnesty International's annual report on Human Rights in the UK.
9. Interviews with passengers from the coaches can be arranged (please enquire - see contact details above). Dramatic, high-quality, digital video footage and photographs are also available. Permission to use them will be granted on a case-by-case basis (rates vary). Contact Zoe Young on 07931 316 970.
10. The solicitor representing the case, John Halford, can be contacted at Bindman & Partners on 020 7833 4433.
Homepage:
