Skip Navigation | HOME | UK Indymedia | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

West Country Features | UK Features | West Country Newswire | UK Newswire |

Law Lords Rule Against 'Fairford 5' and 'Marchwood 14'

Margaret Jones | 02.04.2006 15:46

People have been asking me what happened with the appeal of the ‘Fairford Five’ and the Greenpeace activists in the House of Lords. Others will know by now that the law lords unanimously ruled against us. Aggression, they said - the crime of attacking another nation - is a crime in international law, but cannot be said to be part of British domestic law.

Therefore it is impossible for a British court to hear any argument that the war on Iraq was illegal. Therefore no British judge or jury can consider, as a matter of law, whether the war was illegal or not. Therefore the argument that defendants sincerely believed the war was illegal cannot be used as a defence argument against charges of criminal damage, etc.

If this sounds like Alice in Wonderland to you, it probably is. But splendid protection for Tony Blair and co.

No surprises here, really. We would all have been astonished if the law lords had ruled differently. What is a bit of a surprise is the tone of Lord Hoffmann’s statement on the matter. I’ll just quote two extracts.

Lord Hoffmann considers the statement Paul Milling and I handed in to the police at the time of our arrest at Fairford, back in March 2003. It explained that we were trying to hinder the planes from taking off. Hoffmann writes:

That is a fair picture of what an observer from the United Kingdom would have thought of a somewhat ineffectual attempt by a Second World War résistante to sabotage a German airfield in occupied France. It assumes the defendant to be a lonely individual resisting the acts of a hostile and alien state to which she owes no loyalty. But the state in this case was the defendant’s own state, the state which protected and sustained her, and to which she owed allegiance. And the legal system which had to judge the reasonableness of her actions was that of the United Kingdom itself ...

And this is the ‘liberal’ on the panel speaking. (So do I hand back my Job Seeker’s Allowance right now?)

There follows a great deal along the lines of , ‘What if everyone took the law into their own hands? - society would descend into anarchy,’ etc. Well, in a way I see his point. Here is the nub of it all, though:

These appeals and similar cases concerned with controversial activities such as animal experiments, fox hunting, genetically modified crops, nuclear weapons and the like, suggest the emergence of a new phenomenon, namely litigation as the continuation of protest by other means. [Hoffmann then lists nine cases, from 1988 to 2000, that he considers to exemplify the use of litigation as activism.] The protesters claim that their honestly held opinion of the legality or dangerous character of the activities in question justifies trespass, causing damage to property or the use of force. By this means they invite the court to adjudicate upon the merits of their opinions and provide themselves with a platform from which to address the media on the subject. They seek to cause expense and, if possible, embarrassment to the prosecution by exorbitant demands for disclosure.

Clearly, Lord Hoffmann doesn’t like this trend. Which I take as meaning that we must be doing something right. We are being effective in raising awareness, and while we hardly threaten the stability of the state, the Establishment is a bit annoyed. So it will be inclined to clamp down. It’s an old, old story.

With this weight of judicial opinion hanging over us, five of us have yet to attend our three separate trials in Bristol (some time, we are told, between mid-summer and late autumn).

I know I speak for all five of us in thanking everyone who has supported us so staunchly up till now. It really has helped to keep us strong.

We feel sure many of you will be there for us again, when we go back to court later this year. Again - thank you.

Margaret Jones

……………………
RECENT RELATED LINKS:

FAIRFORD 5' and 'MARCHWOOD 14' in the High Courts. Latest Updates From The Law Lords Hearing.
 http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=24717&results_offset=60

House Of Lords To Hear Key Test Case From Iraq War
 http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=24682

Shock and Awe: DU Particles over Bristol (and rest of UK!)
 http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=24733&results_offset=60

Fairford Peacewatchers:
 http://www.fairfordpeacewatch.com

Margaret Jones
- e-mail: nabataat@yahoo.co.uk

Download this article in pdf format >>

Email this article to someone >>

Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

Compare Nuremburg ...

02.04.2006 17:44

Hoffman's logic is interesting, firstly on legal grounds, it goes 180' against the Nuremburg precedents which ruled that (from memory) "individuals have international obligations which override their duties of obedience to a given nation state".

Secondly, it cuts through all the liberal crap about 'the rule of law' by making clear that the State cannot commit a crime, *by definition* crime is what we do, when their planes kill and maim thousands, when their sanctions starve a million children, when their cops suppress free speech - thats all 'law and order'. For the State, resistance is a crime.

Fuck that, I owe no obedience to a murdering repressive institution. The State has not 'nurtured' me, the fact they extort taxes from me on pain of poverty and imprsonment doesn't mean i owe it allegance. Nobody does, and I thank Amnesty member and reknowned liberal Lord Hoffman for clearing that up.

It sounds a little crude, but never has it been more relevant: Smash the State!

(A)


nice try though

02.04.2006 19:33

At least they had to explain themselves.
Now they can't say some folks didn't try going through the proper process first.
I guess this spells the end for open accountable direct action and requires everyone to face facts mask up.I owe the brit state nothing but rage. fuck the monstrous monarchical tyranical leviathan.
Glorify resistance! May they quake in their boots.

mask of anarchy


Lord Hoffman's comments

03.04.2006 21:19

Surely to be consistent Lord Hoffman should have disqualified himself from sitting in judgement beause he had an interest in the matter. If the legal system cannot find against the state because it is a part of the state it must mean that the whole legal system is a charade? - oh but hang on a minute.............isn't that what the anarchists keep saying?
M

Martyn


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal

West Country Topics

Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
Indymedia
Migration
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

West Country Actions 2007

West Country Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

West Country Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

West Country Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

West Country Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

Languages

english

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech