drug raids on coldharbour lane

[Anna Key]

(has anyone actually read the whole thing yet?)

Yes.

There's another notice too, signed by a senior copper, with the legal gubbins. I think the legal grounds for the closure are this. I believe they're applying for a Closure Order today.

 

[editor]

There's another notice too, signed by a senior copper, with the legal gubbins. I think the legal grounds for the closure are this. I believe they're applying for a Closure Order today.

So what exactly have you been so "concerned" about?

 

[editor]

This notice implies that a person arrested at the premises yesterday - the premises to which the notice is attached - is the drug dealer referred to in the notice.

Indeed. But seeing as no one's been named, what's your point?

 

[Anna Key]

So what exactly have you been so "concerned" about?

See above.

 

[Anna Key]

Indeed. But seeing as no one's been named, what's your point?

Ditto.

>>>>>

 

[pooka]

On the face of it, it is concievable that the notice, by implication, is making an accusation against an individual and it is concievable that this might prejudice a trial. By the same token, the closure notice has the same implication.

But in the absence of a lawyer versed in these matters, we can only conjecture.

I'd have thought a defence team could have a field day in court with a sticker like that.

Hopefully they'll get down there with a camera pronto.

Why do you hope that, Anna, if you think it's possible that 'they have been menacing the neighbourhood (as the poster suggests) and [you] want them to go down'?

 

[RaverDrew]

I'm not gonna shed a tear that the place has gone !!

Fights that spilled out onto the street, were almost a nightly occurence there unfortunately.

 

[Anna Key]

Perhaps this point is made on the drugs war thread (I've not read it) but is inferred by piratetv when s/he posted:

This action by the police certainly will not make me feel any safer tomorrow than i felt yesterday.

I'm not feeling any safer either. Why? Because if the police have successfully arrested a crack cocaine ring operating in central Brixton (as reported in today's Guardian) they'll have created a vacuum into which other gangsters will move.

This movement of gangsters to satisfy supply is certain to occur as central Brixton is an important drugs tourism centre - something the Council refers to as an 'Entertainments Centre' - with large sums of money to be made selling Class 'A' drugs.

So a gang fight may now occur as rival gangs compete to fill the vacuum caused by yesterday's raids.

But what are the police to do? They'll be under pressure to (a) enforce the law and (b) make locals feel safer with high-profile actions (and silly posters). At the end of the day the central Brixton community is tormented by facile drug laws which permit the gangsters operate.

And the governement will do nothing about these laws for fear of offending Mrs Bucket of Middle England.

Result:

Al Capone, plus his gangster rivals, complete for the Coldharbour Lane drugs market.

I'd be not at all surprised should yesterday's raids lead to rival gang members shooting each other (and, possibly, innocent passers-by) as they fight for the turf which yesterday's police raids may have caused to be vacated.

 

[Anna Key]

Why do you hope that... (Hopefully they'll get down there with a camera pronto) if you think it's possible that 'they have been menacing the neighbourhood (as the poster suggests) and [you] want them to go down'?

Justice? Applied equally to everone? Including you?

 

[Furvert]

i'm with anna key on this one. if my magazine were to publish a story about say, a suspected paedophile being arrested, and printied a picture of a sign on that person's door which read 'another paedo arrested', we'd be in a whole heap of legal shit, even if we didn't name the person! in fact, court cases have crumbled on the grounds of this very type of reporting, particularly in the tabloid press.

ok, so this is drugs, not kiddie fiddling, but it's the same difference. and let me be clear, this is not about making a value judgement either 'for' or 'against' the alleged drug dealers in question, it's about legalities. technically, these signs could prejudice a case against them, as the police are strongly 'suggesting' those arrested in the raid are drug dealers, before a court has found them guilty of any such thing.

we either believe in fair trials or we don't, no matter how abhorrent the alleged crime.

 

[Dubversion]

like furvert and anna key have said, due process is due process, editor..

i can understand people feeling anything from relief to happiness that something they perceive as a problem has been shut down/compromised, but the manner in which it has been done is both legally suspect and potentially ineffective (for the reasons furvert has pointed out - it may be all the alleged criminals need to get off the charges)..

and although you might approve of the approach in this instance, surely there are any number of analogous scenarious where you would abhor such behaviour (perhaps an RTS group being shut down and a sticker saying 'Another Terrorist Group Shut Down' stuck on the door of the squat). and then it becomes a value judgement, and the law can't run on value judgements..

 

[Heathcliff]

In both Southwark and Lewisham I think I have seen similar signs outside suspected drug dens before any trial has gotten under way.

In fact, didn't they put a sign up outside the Greenleaf on Landor Road saying it had been busted and closed down for drugs? As I live in Peckham I seldom walk down Landor Road so I just heard about that sign...

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I've got a lot of time for the Met, but sometimes they're as concerned with how something is perceived as the actual substance of what they're achieving.

Exactly - a lot of it is a PR exercise. The Met (and the Home Office) have become increasingly frustrated that although overall crime is decreasing, people's perceptions of the level of crime are really bad. No doubt this is fuelled somewhat by the crap Evil Standard and other tabloids print. So they want to make themselves look good.... and they want to use these type of signs to bypass the media and get straight to the public and say "Look, we're doing all this good work in your local area..."

But I have no problem with that place being closed down.

What is at 412 CHL? I can't picture it...

 

[poster342002]

______________

 

[jd]

Anyone have a legal basis for saying that this poster is prejudicial to a forthcoming trial? Cos I'm not sure there is one.

Not saying it's right or a good idea... don't think it is, really. Arguably it's libellous on the part of the police, and the shop owner could sue them for that, if it's not true... but I can't see that as a basis for throwing a case out. It might be thought a factor in the evidence - are the police prejudiced - but I wouldn't have said it would be crucial from a legal point of view.

Again, not a comment on the rights and wrongs generally, just the legal implications.

 

[editor]

Ditto.

>>>>>

Please don't waste bandwidth with trite drivel like the above.

If you're not prepared to debate the issues in a reasonable manner, don't bother contributing.

 

[editor]

like furvert and anna key have said, due process is due process, editor..

But no individual has been named!

I suggest people wait for the full facts to emerge before getting all 'concerned' about police malpractice.

 

[Dubversion]

Anyone have a legal basis for saying that this poster is prejudicial to a forthcoming trial? Cos I'm not sure there is one.

definitely is, see furvert's post (and trust me, she knows this stuff inside out because of her job) or any number of cases that have been thrown out of court because of the way they were treated or reported by the cops or the media.

 

[editor]

Exactly - a lot of it is a PR exercise.

There's no denying that PR was near the top of the pile during yesterday's exercise, but so long as it's only part of a targeted, intelligence-led, fully resourced, future aware blitz on dodgy dealers, I haven't a problem with it.

It wasn't that long ago that a police raid on Coldharbour Lane would have set the street on edge - but it looks like the community-wrecking rise of crack, smack and guns has made locals a little more responsive.

 

[editor]

definitely is, see furvert's post (and trust me, she knows this stuff inside out because of her job) or any number of cases that have been thrown out of court because of the way they were treated or reported by the cops or the media.

Yes. But no one's been named!

Do you know who the busted drug dealer was?

 

[Dubversion]

But no individual has been named!

I suggest people wait for the full facts to emerge before getting all 'concerned' about police malpractice.

i don't think they need to be, i would imagine implication is enough.

if a case goes to trial against somebody who is known to be connected with said premises, and said premises have been stickered in such a way, i think the judge would have grounds for dismissing the case because of the impact it would have on the defendants.

i'm not even saying it's police 'malpractice' as such - surely if you want dealers out of the area, you want a watertight case against them and this could conceivably fuck that up..

 

[Dubversion]

Yes. But no one's been named!

see the above post.

 

[Furvert]

Anyone have a legal basis for saying that this poster is prejudicial to a forthcoming trial? Cos I'm not sure there is one.

my media law is a bit rusty, but basically if a case is 'active' ie: people have been arrested and charged with a crime or arrested and charges are likely to be imminent, then any report that could prejudice a jury could be deemed as contempt of court.

so, if the media reported/showed a picture of the sign, there'd definitely be an arguement for contempt.

but as it exists at the moment - just open to view to the public? if one of those members of the public were to become jurors on that case, then the defence would have a good case for claiming prejudice.

other than that, not too sure.

 

[editor]

i don't think they need to be, i would imagine implication is enough.

I disagree.

If the police can prove that those premises were connected with drug dealing - irrespective of whether the owners were involved or not - then they have the right to close the premises down.

I can't see how slapping up a statement announcing that fact can be somehow 'libellous' but I'd rather wait for someone who actually knows something about the law to offer an opinion before reaching a dramatic conclusion about police malpractice.

 

[jd]

definitely is, see furvert's post (and trust me, she knows this stuff inside out because of her job) or any number of cases that have been thrown out of court because of the way they were treated or reported by the cops or the media.

Yep - problems with libel, especially for mass media, and also with prejudice against a fair trial where unproven allegations are widely circulated as if true.

Widely circulated is the difference, I think. A poster doesn't have the same effect as a Daily Mail article when it comes to finding/being able to find an unbiased jury, which I think is the legal shit the Furvert was talking about.

Might be wrong, sorry if so - but I can't think of another basis for claiming prejudice against a fair trial.

To be clear, I don't think it's a good move by the police, and their PR objectives could be met without that implicit assumption of guilt. However, I really don't think that a poster outside a crime scene would be seen as prejudical in the same way as a newspaper or magazine article.

 

[editor]

so, if the media reported/showed a picture of the sign, there'd definitely be an arguement for contempt.

I think you're totally wrong - but let's be honest, the laws surrounding drug busts aren't exactly our strong suites, so we could both be talking bollocks!

I'm saying no more until I know more about the case.

 

[jd]

but as it exists at the moment - just open to view to the public? if one of those members of the public were to become jurors on that case, then the defence would have a good case for claiming prejudice.

I agree with this bit, but I don't think it's very likely to happen.

What I'm saying is, it could be prejudicial to a fair trial, but the poster on its own is unlikely to have that effect.

Chances are the jury members won't have seen it... if it was widely reported, that might change, but... I don't think you can say it's definitely a problem in legal terms as things stand, and I'd go a bit further and it probably wouldn't be.

Edit: the point is that things have to be pretty bad - Myra Hindley style - before things get to a stage where an unbiased jury cannot be found in the land.

My legal guestimate (cos I don't the facts either, although I know a little about the law) is that, if the police have reasonable evidence at trial, having put a poster up outside the bust scene will have no impact on the verdict or sentence.

 

[kea]

i'd say that the laws of libel and contempt apply in that the police have published the poster and therefore are subject to the same laws as any other publishers (such as magazines). whoever printed it is also liable in the same way that printers who publish mags etc are liable for their content.

with regard to the libel issue, it doesn't have to be widely circulated in order to be a libel. it has to materially affect the reputation of the person/persons known to be involved in the business/premises where the poster was posted. this generally means affecting their reputation in terms of their livelihood but can also mean their reputation - specially if they're a vicar or somesuch! i believe that the libelled person has to prove they've actually been negatively effected by the libel, and of course that the libel is untrue. truth is an accepted defence for publishers. therefore settling this in terms of libel would have to wait til the court case over the drugs was over.

edit: a link:
http://www.sahota.libel-law.co.uk/what_is_libel.html

Libel law protects individuals from unjustified attacks on their reputation. A person is libelled if the words expose him or her to the risk of being:
hated, ridiculed, or viewed with contempt, or

shunned or avoided, or

lowered in the standing of right thinking members of society, or

discredited in his trade, business, office, or profession.

edit again: so i guess in relation to this case libel is definitely an issue since accusing someone of being a drug dealer will certainly cause them to be hated, ridiculed, or viewed with contempt/shunned or avoided/lowered in the standing of right thinking members of society; and since this is a business which has been raided it could easily cause the person involved to be 'discredited in his trade, business, office, or profession'.


with regard to the contempt/prejudice issue, the number of people seeing the allegation and the likelihood of them being on the jury is an issue in practice if not in point of law - it's unlikely that a case would be affected if few people had seen the poster and thus the judge would be unlikely to find contempt in practice. it depends on the case being active as well.

edit: 'active' proceedings =

when:

a person has been arrested;

a warrant for his/her arrest has been issued;

a summons has been issued;

a person is charged.

this is just my understanding btw but i'd agree with furv.

 

[pooka]

From today's Evening Standard

The suspected leader of a multi-million crack-cocaine racket has been arrested by armed police.

Castro Brown, 54, was held as more than 200 officers raided three of his business premises in Brixton and his home in Beckenham.

Armed officers were involved in raiding his restaurant Pedro Keys and a fast food outlet Nyam Foods, both in Coldharbour Lane, Brixton.

Brown was held in a near-by betting shop. The restaurant was suspected of being a hub of crime, visited by hundreds of crack users each day. Armed drug dealers were also suspected of using the premises. One
police source claimed it was a centre of gun crime and drug dealing.

The raids came just a week after two men were shot dead in Brixton amid fears of a new gang war between rival drug dealing gangs.

Brown himself was renowned in the Brixton area, as a respectful member of the community campaigning against guns and receiving funding for community projects from the Home Office.

However, his premises became notorious for alleged illegality. And in April this year he was bankrupted by Lambeth Council after refusing to pay his commercial refuse collection contract on his fast food store.

Officers were continuing today to question 29 people arrested.

A police statement said: "The premises targeted are believed to be connected to linked series of incidents in the borough involving the supply of class-A drugs and possession of firearms."

The majority of those held in Pedro Keys were detained on suspicion of possession of Class-A drugs or firearms. Chief Superintendent Richard Quinn, head of policing

in Lambeth, said: "Brixton has seen a dramatic decline in serious crime over the last 12 months with hundreds of crack houses being permanently closed down."

He added: "I believe that today's raids will have a significant impact on the reduction of crime in the borough and will hopefully go some way to reassuring the community even further that the police and its partners are absolutely determined to keeping Lambeth safe."

 

[hendo]

Anyone have a legal basis for saying that this poster is prejudicial to a forthcoming trial? Cos I'm not sure there is one.

Off the top of my head they'll have had to think about the Contempt of Court Act and the Magistrates Court Act, both of which relate to public discussion - ie in the media - of people who've been arrested and face charges, and impose quite fierce restrictions on what can be said. Leaflets can be said to be publications, I would guess. Possibly notices as well.

The question is, how close are these notices and leaflets to the line of what's acceptable to publish, given that proceedings are active from the point that arrests are made?

A judge would have to decide after hearing argument from a suitably aggrieved barrister.

On the broader point, police might say (if they posted here) that yesterday's action was prompted by people's resentment of the "Brixton Drug Supermarket." And if that's right they'll have the support of a hell of a lot of people, leaflets or no leaflets.