28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
FAIRFORD COACH ACTION
Phone Jane Laporte on 07817 483 167 or Jesse Schust on 0781 458
7361 or e-mail press@fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (8 December 2004)
COACH-NAPPED PROTESTORS “VIRTUALLY PRISONERS” RULES
COURT OF APPEAL
Anti-war protestors are today celebrating a Court of Appeal ruling
which held that the police acted unlawfully in detaining them
for 2½ hours without arrests.
The Court of Appeal ruled today that police violated the Human
Rights Act when they illegally detained 120 protestors en route
to a demonstration at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire. Giving judgment,
Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf stated that:
"the passengers were virtually prisoners on the coaches
for the length of the journey…[W]e are not persuaded that
there were no less intrusive possible alternative courses of
action here.
At the Appeal hearing in October, Gloucestershire police argued
that they were in fact protecting the protestors' right to life
by detaining them and forcing their return to London. In his
witness statement, Chief Superintendent Kevin Lambert, the officer
in charge of policing the protest, stated that, 'had a member
of the public penetrated the defences and been killed or injured
by one of the armed personnel guarding the B52 aircraft…the
public reaction and political consequences would have been extremely
damaging to the coalition partners'. Helen Wickham, a coach passenger,
said: “I think it is deeply worrying that Gloucestershire
police, confronted with the possibility of US troops shooting
unarmed protestors, chose to defend the US use of lethal force
and pursue a political agenda.”
This ruling, which reaffirms a High Court ruling in February,
will impact on the policing of future demonstrations and will
have implications for the May Day 2001/Oxford Circus cases against
the Metropolitan Police early next year.
The ruling was welcomed as a confirmation of the limits of a
draconian power which Parliament has never debated or sanctioned.
However the protestors feel that the judgment should have gone
further and ruled that the police also denied them two other
human rights: freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.
Jane Laporte, the named claimant, said: “the right to protest
is something we celebrate when we see it exercised abroad, but
this fundamental democratic freedom has been relegated to a privilege
that can be taken away on the whim of a police officer.”
Last March, the protestors 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 this was justified because the protestors were, in
their view, “well-armed”.
However, in the original High Court ruling in February, 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.”
John Halford, the solicitor at Bindman and Partners representing
the group, said today that, “the police action in detaining
these protestors was and remains a grotesque abuse of power.
What was at stake here today was nothing less than the right
to protest in the UK. That this right can be taken away when
no crime had been committed and on the flimsiest of pretexts
lays the foundation of a police state.”
Jesse Schust, one of the coach passengers, said: “It is
particularly ironic that the police violated our human rights
by detaining us, when we sought to demonstrate against an illegal
war that has devastated Iraq and left over 100,000 dead.”
The detained coach passengers are prepared to take their case
to the House of Lords and the European Court of 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
(A formatted version of this press release is available at the
website)
----------------------------------------------------------
Notes for Journalists
1. Fairford Coach Action is the name of the group of more than
80 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,
statements of support, and testimonial statements from coach
passengers. http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/
2. 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. To
use this footage on TV or in film, contact Catherine Bonnici
of Journeyman Films (catherine@journeyman.co.uk Tel: 020 8941
9994 Fax: 020 8941 9899).
3. Professional photos of the coach detention are available.
Guy Smallman was one of several accredited journalists who were
on the coaches. He has a selection of pictures from the day.
Contact Guy Smallman 07956 429 059 with enquiries. (These photos
are in a suitable format to be wired directly to the picture
desk).
4. The solicitor representing the case, John Halford, can be
contacted at Bindman & Partners on 020 7833 4433.
5. The Fairford coach case is listed in Amnesty International's
report: Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's
Concerns in the Region, January ­ June 2004, and was mentioned
in Liberty's dossier on the policing at RAF Fairford. Liberty
made a submission to the Court of Appeal supporting the passengers'
appeal. Other supporters include Ken Livingstone, David Drew,
MP (Stroud), Lynne Jones, MP, Caroline Lucas, MEP, Jean Lambert,
MEP, and Mark Thomas (see website for quotes).
6. On 22nd March 2003, three days after the start of the US/UK
war on Iraq, a demonstration organised by the Gloucestershire
Weapons Inspectors (GWI), attracted over 3,000 protestors to
the airbase. Groups travelled to Fairford from 37 locations across
the UK. 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
over 2000 anti-terror searches in the vicinity.) GWI, Berkshire
CIA and Liberty issued a dossier showing how stop and search
powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 were misused by police. 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/skills/design/sectors/aviationdefence/jfsiraffairford/
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 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).
9. 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.
From the Press Team at the Fairford Coach Action: http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
See also: UK:
Protesters were held unlawfully, court rules - 120 people prevented
from attending demonstration against Iraq war at RAF Fairford
will claim £3,000 each Fairford (link)
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.