‘March for the Alternative’ - 26th March - London

[BigTom]

I might see if there's a digital copy of the verdict from trial A for you to see. I wasn't at trial B, and I haven't seen the verdict, but trial A they were definitely convicted, using joint enterprise as the basis, of aggravated trespass under (a).

As per my last post, ianal, I can't say you are wrong, you sound certain in a way that suggests to me that you've had experience of them doing exactly what you say they can, but I am left not understanding why everyone - CPS, defence, judge - seemed to think it was important which subsection was being charged. What you said, I can understand between the judge and cps, but why would the defence solicitors have been happy that the charge was (a) and not (b) or (c) if it didn't matter?
This is Bindmans so they are not an inexperienced firm.

 

[BigTom]

http://www.box.com/s/180c4056f2e8893e92d2

Links to a pdf of the trial A verdict

 

[BigTom]

These defendants are all charged that:

On 26th March 2011 at Fortnum and Mason, Piccadilly WIA1ER,having trespassed on
land, naineìy the premises of Fortnum and Mason, Piocadiliy, London, and in reiation
to a lawful activity, namely the occupier’s retail business, which persons were
engaged in on that land, did an act, namely entered the premises`in the company of
several others and demonstrated, which you intended to have the effect of
intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from
engaging in that activity.

Cont1'a1‘y to S68 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Does it matter that the charge doesn't specify s68 (1) (a), rather than (b) or (c), but the wording of the charge says intending to intimidate?
I'm not sure why s68 (3) is mentioned, that's the tariff for the charge.

 

[past caring]

That's unique to murder/manslaughter. There are recognised defences to murder which, if successful, constitute manslaughter. So the jury has to be allowed to decide on manslaughter if they reject murder. They can't be prosecuted on both charges because the CPS would have to argue against its own preferred charge of murder in order to prosecute for manslaughter. It is effectively up to the defendant to prove manslaughter in cases where there is no dispute about who is culpable, only why.

It was a mistaken analogy, but the general point stands.

Section 4 of the Public Order act 1986 provides;

4 Fear or provocation of violence.(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

The Crown may charge you with an offence under s. (1)(b) but fail to show that any "writing, sign or other visible representation" was displayed. But if it emerges during the course of the trial that you did instead and in fact use threatening behaviour, you are going to get a guilty under s. (1)(a).

 

[past caring]

http://www.box.com/s/180c4056f2e8893e92d2

Links to a pdf of the trial A verdict

Yes, well looking at that it's clear that the judge took the meaning of "intimidate" in its widest form;

2) Was there an intention to intimidate?

The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines intimidate as:

Terrfiy, overawe, cow. Now esp. to force to or deter from some action by threats or violence.

I am satisfied so that I am sure that it was the intention of these protestors to take control of the store. They were aware that they could not do so without flooding the store with protestors thereby cowing both police, security, staff and customers. I have no doubt that it was their intention to intimidate.

So, yes, they've got a guilty on the basis that (a) was met. It may well be that in the first trial the Crown wanted to change things to go for (b) or (c) because they felt it would be easier to get a guilty - but Courts can be arsey about what they perceive as the prosecution buggering about and the change was refused on that basis.

Again, if the judge in the second case said what he is reported to have said, it probably means that he's just a bit more savvy - and didn't want his decision overturned on the basis that there had been no intention to intimidate (are any of the first lot appealing?) and has given a guilty on grounds that (I think) are pretty unarguable.

 

[ymu]

I'm not sure how that Act operates in law. Perhaps it was to do with the CPS basing their case on intent to intimidate without covering the other grounds? Or possibly that they have to select one ground only.

These things often have CPS guidance somewhere. That's where I got the stuff on murder/manslaughter from.

 

[BigTom]

Yes, well looking at that it's clear that the judge took the meaning of "intimidate" in its widest form;



So, yes, they've got a guilty on the basis that (a) was met. It may well be that in the first trial the Crown wanted to change things to go for (b) or (c) because they felt it would be easier to get a guilty - but Courts can be arsey about what they perceive as the prosecution buggering about and the change was refused on that basis.

Yes, that's exactly it.

Again, if the judge in the second case said what he is reported to have said, it probably means that he's just a bit more savvy - and didn't want his decision overturned on the basis that there had been no intention to intimidate (are any of the first lot appealing?) and has given a guilty on grounds that (I think) are pretty unarguable.

I think the twitter that I quoted misrepresented what the second judge said (different people). I suspect that when we see the full verdict it will be more or less the same as the first one.

 

[past caring]

In layman's terms the law says "your commit offence 'A' if you do x, y or z." But it's entirely possible for the Crown to prosecute on the basis that you did x and z - or even all three. Nothing to stop them covering as many bases as they think they have evidence for.

Of course, the Crown has to say on what specific basis you are being charged so that you know what you have to refute - but let us imagine that the defendants in the second trial were charged with (a) but were mug enough to say "Oh we didn't intend to intimidate anyone or scare anyone, we just wanted to occupy F and M and shut it down for a few hours" - that's going to be enough to get a guilty under (b) or (c) or both. Even if, as in the first trial, none of the defendants gave evidence, I would hate to have the job of trying to show that their (undisputed) presence in F and M was not intended to have the effect of disrupting or obstructing the activity of the store.

 

[BigTom]

Trial C have been found NOT guilty!

Don't know any details but will post again when I do.. fuck yeah

 

[DaveCinzano]

BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17496073

 

[Mr.Bishie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21901009

What a crock of fucking shit.