Fairford coach kidnap victory in Lords?

[detective-boy]

So are these cops going to be in trouble?

Probably not. The Court acknowledged the difficulty of making a decision on the spur of the moment and without the luxury of being able to read up on it, seek other views and consider all the alternatives at great length.

The Common Law will always involve a debate around the edges of what powers actually are.

In this case I think the Chief Superintendent who decided on the action should have his judgment questioned as I think it was anything but clear that the law allowed what he did and I would have expected a competent officer to realise that he was on the ragged edge. Whether it would be worthy of formal disciplinary action is less clear - there is certainly no suggestion anywhere in the judgement that the decision was made in anything other than good faith in an attempt to preserve the peace (as the Court accepted was also the officer's duty).

There would certainly be no reason to question the actions of any officer other than the decision makeer - the decision was not so clearly unlawful as to mnerit junior officers ignoring it (even the Divisional Court found in favour, don;t forget).

If the police and other authorities never acted around the margins of current understanding of powers then they would be failing in their other duties - if they'd not acted and someone had got hurt / killed would an enquiry have concluded that they should have done and criticised them for not doing so? I think it probably would (and quite rightly too).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

There was a very iffy police action on the train back to London from a Brighton-Oxford game in, I think, the 1991-2 season. The police locked all the doors in the carriages so that nobody could get out until they said so (i.e. until Victoria). As I recall there was some talk of challenging it in court but either this never happened or the case failed to succeed.

 

[TAE]

Probably not.

 

[untethered]

Probably not. The Court acknowledged the difficulty of making a decision on the spur of the moment and without the luxury of being able to read up on it, seek other views and consider all the alternatives at great length.

The Common Law will always involve a debate around the edges of what powers actually are.

In this case I think the Chief Superintendent who decided on the action should have his judgment questioned as I think it was anything but clear that the law allowed what he did and I would have expected a competent officer to realise that he was on the ragged edge...

I thought the judgements were generally far too generous to the chief super.

This wasn't a situation that got out of control or where planning was overtaken by circumstances. The evidence shows considerable preparation for a range of contingencies and the chief officers should have ensured that they had suitable legal advice on the range of tactics they were considering employing. That they didn't is at best, reckless.

It's also clear from the judgements that the extra information gained in the lay-by (ie. very small numbers of known "hard core" protesters and small amounts of riot equipment) should have reinforced the view that any disorder at Fairford could easily have been contained with the resources available.

 

[newbie]

And if people hadn't fought the case, the cops would have still been able to carry on as before, without needing new legislation. The problem is with cops, not people fighting them.

I've no criticism of the people involved. Victory is much better than defeat and I'm glad they won

I just hope my reservations are groundless and this doesn't turn into a ruling the police can rely on in suppressing protest. They'll be studying exactly what they've been told they can do, lawfully, and figuring out how to turn that into workable tactics.

 

[detective-boy]

I thought the judgements were generally far too generous to the chief super.

Maybe, maybe not. I can conceive of a whole range of different situations he may have actually been in at the time, vis-a-vis information available, reliability of that information, other things happening elsewhere simultaneously ... some of which would mean he had less time / info available and some of which would mean he had more. Without knowing more detail than is (ever) contained in a judgment, I would not care to guess which.

But, as I posted, I would not have expected a competent, experienced officer to make this decision (and then justify it in the way he appears to have done). It certainly should be noted on his file but whether or not it amounts to something worthy of disciplinary proceedings (and on what grounds - incompetence is not a disciplinary offence per se - is another matter.

 

[newbie]

One incompetent apple? That rather stretches credulity in the light of the passions of the time. The policing of Fairford was oppressive, it involved forces from all over the country, aggressive use of stop & search and was clearly intended to intimidate protestors away. That was the result of political direction. The coach incident was part of a pattern.

Casualty of War report.

 

[untethered]

It certainly should be noted on his file

Yes, it's not every day that someone in any organisation has their decisions ruled unlawful by the House of Lords.

 

[winjer]

Though if it affects other demos and issues to do with right to protest then I may start changing my mind... E.g. why couldn't this apply to the miners 1984-85, whose coaches were turned back...

Because it specifically excludes them by contrasting the two different sets of circumstances (as set out by the courts) - see references in the judgment to Moss v McLachlan, e.g.

I would respectfully differ from the Court of Appeal's conclusion (para 45 of the judgment) that the present case is "very much on all fours with the decision in [Moss v McLachlan, above]". With four members of one belligerent faction within less than five minutes of confronting another belligerent faction, and no designated, police-controlled, assembly point separated from the scene of apprehended disorder, as in the centre of Fairford, it could plausibly be held in Moss that a breach of the peace was about to be committed by those whose onward progress the police decided to block.

Further:

If all of the passengers on the coaches had been Womble anarchists determined on violence and a breach of the peace by them had been imminent, a decision to stop the coaches from proceeding would have been an appropriate way of preventing the breach of the peace and protecting the rights of those who wanted to protest peacefully at Fairford. [...] Another possibility would have been to target the known Wombles on the coaches and to remove them at Lechlade. There is no evidence to show that this would not have been practicable, given the forces and facilities available to the police there. Action of that kind would have materially reduced the threat of violence at Fairford.

 

[detective-boy]

One incompetent apple? That rather stretches credulity in the light of the passions of the time.

...

That was the result of political direction. The coach incident was part of a pattern.

I doubt it would have been the result of political direction. I never encountered political "direction" in anything I did - pressure / advice / suggestion, yes but "direction", no.

As for whether it was part of a pattern, I cannot say. Apart from what was written in the judgement I have no detailed knowledge of the full sequence of events. It certainly seemed to be portrayed as an isolated decision, made on the spot by the Chief Superintendent, but it could quite easily have been something which had been pre-planned / agreed beforehand and briefed to all officers.

I would be surprised, however, because there would be an awful lot of officers aware of the contents of the briefing and they may have been moved to bring any such content to light once the matter received this high profile (it would also have been open to the Chief Superintendent to make mention of the fact he was following orders / advice himself anyway, rather than taking the rap).

My best guess would be that it was a tactic which was mentioned in briefings as being available but that it was left to individual unit commanders to decide if, when and how to use it in the circumstances they encountered.

 

[laptop]

My best guess would be that it was a tactic which was mentioned in briefings as being available but that it was left to individual unit commanders to decide if, when and how to use it in the circumstances they encountered.

That'd be a pretty big hint as to what'd make the guv'nor happy, though?

 

[The Black Hand]

Well pointed out Laptop.

Here's some material from 1995, remember those days? A quiet political situation, with no threats, no previous, just an ordinary crowd who were used as 'Crowd control practice' by the filth. Who are let off the leash all too regularly...

http://www.spunk.org/library/actions/sp001022.txt

 

[detective-boy]

That'd be a pretty big hint as to what'd make the guv'nor happy, though?

Not really. It is pretty standard practice at a briefing for a large-scale event like this for all tactics and powers to be mentioned as a reminder to officers, many of whom do not routinely use them and may not have had to remember the details since they were at training school. Special emphasis is usually given to the powers which have recently been introduced / amended in some way, by legislation or case law (as this had) because update trainig is notoriously bad in the police service.

 

[The Black Hand]

Not really. It is pretty standard practice at a briefing for a large-scale event like this for all tactics and powers to be mentioned as a reminder to officers, many of whom do not routinely use them and may not have had to remember the details since they were at training school. Special emphasis is usually given to the powers which have recently been introduced / amended in some way, by legislation or case law (as this had) because update trainig is notoriously bad in the police service.

But its the secret handshake and the quiet chat over the cup of tea which seals what they will do

 

[TAE]

pressure / advice / suggestion, yes

Can you tell us more?

There seem to have been quite a few actions by the police against demonstrators which seemed politically motivated rather than due to bland policing concerns. One thing that springs to mind is the London visit of the chinese leader.

In any case I'd argue that not taking any legal action against officers who have been judged to have acted unlawfully is going to undermine public confidence.

 

[detective-boy]

Can you tell us more?

...

In any case I'd argue that not taking any legal action against officers who have been judged to have acted unlawfully is going to undermine public confidence.

I've never been specifically told that the Government want this or that in a public order or other situation. But frequently I have been aware of their views in newspaper articles in which they have expressed a desire that such and such "must not be allowed to happen" or simply stating that "protestors won't be allowed to ..."

As for legal action, there are only two "proper" targets - the police force as an entity and the single officer making the decision and directing others to carry them out (which would appear to be the Chief Superintendent). The decision, as I've said before, was not so obviously unlawful as it would have been an option to expect junior officers to refuse to carry it out (even the Divisional Court agreed with it, for fuck's sake!). All those carrying out his direction were (so far as is known) acting in good faith.

I would need to know more about the circumstances and background than is in the judgment before giving a view on whether the force or the Chief Superintendent should be targetted with any action. Broadly speaking I would say the former if he was acting in good faith and in accordance with the advice / guidance / training he had been given and the latter if he had gone outside that.

 

[Yossarian]

Nice to see that we are living in a world where people are keen to establish rights ratrher than get a slice of "compo" ...

What’s wrong with people who’ve been fucked over by the pigs trying to get a bit of compensation?

 

[detective-boy]

What’s wrong with people who’ve been fucked over by the pigs trying to get a bit of compensation?

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who have a genuine claim to compensation getting it. I have repeatedly posted on other threads that I believe that ex-gratia payments should be made in cases where the police have got it wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight, that is apparent.

What I do not like is the "Where do I get my handout?" sentiment expressed by marmite342:

"score- how do i get my compensation money then?"

No involvement in pursuing the case. No interest in pursuing the case in order to secure / set the boundaries for civil liberties and freedoms. Simply sticking an idle hand out and demanding something for nothing.

 

[Thora]

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who have a genuine claim to compensation getting it. I have repeatedly posted on other threads that I believe that ex-gratia payments should be made in cases where the police have got it wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight, that is apparent.

What I do not like is the "Where do I get my handout?" sentiment expressed by marmite342:



No involvement in pursuing the case. No interest in pursuing the case in order to secure / set the boundaries for civil liberties and freedoms. Simply sticking an idle hand out and demanding something for nothing.

How do you know what marmite's involvement was?

 

[soulman]

How do you know what marmite's involvement was?

Maybe he's wanting to know what marmite's involement was!

 

[DrRingDing]

Simply sticking an idle hand out and demanding something for nothing.

Being physically prevented from protesting at a very important time and illegally detained for hours is not 'nothing'.

 

[untethered]

Being physically prevented from protesting at a very important time and illegally detained for hours is not 'nothing'.

And how is a cash payment going to compensate anyone for being frustrated in their attempt to participate in our open democracy?

 

[DrRingDing]

And how is a cash payment going to compensate anyone for being frustrated in their attempt to participate in our open democracy?

Becasue it will make the filth think twice before giving the order to pull that pantomime again.

 

[untethered]

Becasue it will make the filth think twice before giving the order to pull that pantomime again.

If it were true, perhaps. I don't see any evidence that it is. It's not like they have to personally shell out for the damages, is it?

 

[DrRingDing]

It's not like they have to personally shell out for the damages, is it?

Think budget, think commanding officer in charge of budget and his foot soldiers.

Worked it out yet?

 

[detective-boy]

And how is a cash payment going to compensate anyone for being frustrated in their attempt to participate in our open democracy?

I have no problem with the payment of monetary compensation for something like infringements of the right to proetst which are a bit intangible to put an actual price on.

But when it comes to exemplary damages (i.e. very siginifcant sums intended as a "punishment" beyond that actual damages caused) I have serious doubts about them being given to the individual as a sort of "windfall" - any such exemplary damages should go to some general public good cause (charities, or whatever) so the punishment aspect is still there but we all benefit rather than an individual.

 

[Yossarian]

I think it'd definitely be a nice gesture if, were the protestors to receive compensation, they donated some of it to anti-war causes, charities helping Iraqi victims of the war etc, but I reckon that's their decision and it should be left up to tthem...

 

[DrRingDing]

I think it'd definitely be a nice gesture if, were the protestors to receive compensation, they donated some of it to anti-war causes, charities helping Iraqi victims of the war etc, but I reckon that's their decision and it should be left up to tthem...

Not that it's got fuck all to do with anyone on this thread but I have already pledged half my money will go to chritable causes.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Fairford test case - judgment on 8 February 2013

Date: 4 February 2013

On Saturday 22 March 2003, approximately 159 passengers boarded three coaches at Euston Station in London, to travel to Fairford Military Aerodrome, with the intention of protesting against the war in Iraq and the fact that an English base was being used by the Americans for the purpose of launching their bombing mission in Iraq.

Most of the protestors never reached Fairford Military Aerodrome. They were stopped by police at Lechlade, a town three miles short of Fairford. The protestors were told to leave the coaches by the police and searched, then obliged to get back on the coaches and sent back to London under a police escort.

The case engages Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Judgment in 12 test cases is to be issued at 10am on Friday, 8 February 2013 at Central London County Court. Bindmans acts for over 100 people who we were affected.

Saimo Chahal, partner at Bindmans LLP, will be available for interviews outside the Court between 10am and 10.30 am on Friday 8 February 2013.

http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/fairford-test-case-judgment-on-8-february-20131

 

[Pickman's model]

Not that it's got fuck all to do with anyone on this thread but I have already pledged half my money will go to chritable causes.

i'm a good charitable cause.