Stansted 15 found guilty of 'endangering' airport

[Spymaster]

This must be some specialised definition of the term "endangering" that is used only within the law courts of England and Wales, right?

It's an airport, ffs.

Do people really expect to be able to cut a hole in the fence, go wandering around the operational area, chain themselves to an aircraft, and not get nicked?

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's an airport, ffs.

Do people really expect to be able to cut a hole in the fence, go wandering around the operational area, chain themselves to an aircraft, and not get nicked?

They expected to get nicked. They didn't expect to be contemplating the prospect of life in jail when they have not harmed a living soul and have acted in defence of human rights.

Ultimately they expected, as you would, a fair trial. The judge's intructions to the jury denied them that.

 

[NoXion]

It's an airport, ffs.

Do people really expect to be able to cut a hole in the fence, go wandering around the operational area, chain themselves to an aircraft, and not get nicked?

Nope. And if you re-read carefully, you'll note that my objection is not that they've been arrested, or even that they've been charged with an offence. Rather it is that legislation ostensibly cooked up to "preserve" our freedumbs from the guddam terrists, is being used on the flimsiest of pretexts as an act of political intimidation against people who non-violently acted according to their conscience.

 

[eoin_k]

They weren't tried as terror offenses. They were charged with intentionally disrupting services at an airport. Which they did.

The defendants were charged under a law to enact an international treaty against sabotage to civil aviation, which came out the year after a related treaty on hijacking planes. Both agreements responded to a wave of such actions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the time lawyers drew a contrast between the close relationship between these two agreements, and another earlier treaty on jurisdiction over general criminal offences taking place on board aircraft. What seems so inaccurate to you about describing this as counterterrorism legislation?

In this case, everything took place in the UK and involved a plane chartered by the UK Home Office. None of the complications to do with jurisdiction involved with international transport came in to play here.Presumably, these defendants could have been charged with the usual protest offences (criminal damage, aggravated tresspass etc.).

Hopefully, the judges instructions to the jury provide the basis for a quick appeal.

 

[ska invita]

 

[Brainaddict]

And they're cleared on appeal! And the judge made a point of saying the legislation should never have been used against them. As any reasonable person knew.

Quite enraging though that the state has exacted its pound of flesh anyway, in the form of extreme stress for the defendants followed by their community service punishments. I don't think they care about the community service that much, but the process itself was brutal and for a lot of the time they thought they'd be doing a long stretch.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

And they're cleared on appeal! And the judge made a point of saying the legislation should never have been used against them. As any reasonable person knew.

Quite enraging though that the state has exacted its pound of flesh anyway, in the form of extreme stress for the defendants followed by their community service punishments. I don't think they care about the community service that much, but the process itself was brutal and for a lot of the time they thought they'd be doing a long stretch.

Great news, this was blatant state harassment.

 

[ddraig]

And they're cleared on appeal! And the judge made a point of saying the legislation should never have been used against them. As any reasonable person knew.

Quite enraging though that the state has exacted its pound of flesh anyway, in the form of extreme stress for the defendants followed by their community service punishments. I don't think they care about the community service that much, but the process itself was brutal and for a lot of the time they thought they'd be doing a long stretch.

yay

'Stansted 15' win appeal against conviction for deportation flight protest

The protesters locked themselves around a plane that was deporting people from the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sitting with Mr Justice Jay and Mrs Justice Whipple, Lord Burnett said the protesters' "conduct did not satisfy the various elements of the offence".
"There was, in truth, no case to answer," he said.
"We recognise that the various summary-only offences with which the appellants were originally charged, if proved, might well not reflect the gravity of their actions.
"That, however, does not allow the use of an offence which aims at conduct of a different nature.
"All the appellants' convictions must be quashed."

 

[hitmouse]

Bit more detailed analysis of the decision here:

Stansted 15: A great result, not a great judgement - Freedom News

Carl Spender examines the details of the Stansted 15 judgement and – with his usual dourness – finds a lot to be disappointed about. As readers of Freedom are no doubt aware: earlier this week, activists who blocked a deportation flight at Stansted Airport in 2017 had their convictions for...

freedomnews.org.uk

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If you serve a community service punishment and are subsequently found to be innocent, how are reparations made? Does the judge come and cut your lawn for the next six months or something?

 

[hitmouse]

They're just going around furiously littering now to make up for it.

 

[Brainaddict]

If you serve a community service punishment and are subsequently found to be innocent, how are reparations made? Does the judge come and cut your lawn for the next six months or something?

That would be so good. Actual punishment for shit judges. It does seem at least they should get an hourly rate for the hours they worked. But some quick googling suggests they won't get compensation just for being found not guilty after their punishment, but they may be able to get compensation if they were wrongfully charged. Given the judge's comments it seems like they have a good claim and I hope they manage to get something.