Clarification about the two meetings
Ok, I attended both meetings and it happens that I have the notes from both of the meetings.
- Thursday 27th March at LARC - (aprox 15 people attending, and a solicitor from Moss and Co answered questions)
- Thursday 3rd April at LARC but moved to the Davenant Centre due to a double booking (aprox 25 people attending)
The notes were not circulated, but they were taken down. It was agreed that the minutes would not be sent out, but that they would be brought to the consequent meeting. At present all the organising is done via e-mail and notes are no longer formally taken at the very infrequent meetings. What follows are accounts of the meetings with some excerpts from the notes included in quotes.
The first meeting ended with an agreement that the Moss solicitor would get more information to help the group to decide between civil/judicial review cases. It was felt that 15 people didn't represent enough of the passengers, and that people would "
contact as many people as possible who were on the coaches but not at the meeting and ask them to attend the next meeting." The date and time of the meeting was arranged to best suit the present group. Some people were frustrated that a decision had to be postponed until the next meeting (a week of delay) because an application for Judicial Review must be commenced within the first 3 weeks after an event.
The second meeting was held in the evening on 3rd April 2003, at the Davenant Centre, London (after a double booking at LARC meant that the meeting had to be moved at the last minute). There were approximately 25 people in attendance, and some people were consulted by phone who were not able to attend.
"
The meeting started with general discussion of different legal firms and legal options. The main points were:
-A letter had been received from Moss and Co, suggesting that coach passengers follow separate personal claims through the firm, not a judicial review.
-Bindman's were interested in the case and seemed to think it had a good chance of success. Information from Bindman's was distributed to the people at the meeting. Bindman's had sent out letters to the police forces involved in our detention, which would be the first stage of bringing it to a judicial review. This did not commit the group to going with Bindman's at this stage."
In addition to the information sent along by Bindmans, information was distributed that gave details/background about Bindmans, Moss and Co and Liberty (all gathered from their websites).
"
The group discussed the pros and cons of a judicial review. The issue of what happens if the case fails - people thought the situation would then not be much different than the current situation. It would still be possible to take private legal action in the event of a judicial review failing."
"
The group discussed the events of 22 March, and people wanted to clarify which parts of the police's actions Bindman's were challenging. People said that the whole event should be challenged, the stopping and searching as well as the "escort" back to London. "
"
The group voted to go ahead with a judicial review. There was only one vote against, and the voter said as long as he could go forward with a private case he didn't much mind what the group did and would go with the majority."
"
The group voted unanimously to go with Bindman's. There was an objection that Liberty had not had time to respond, and it was clarified that in the event of a judicial review Liberty and any other interested legal firms/organisations would be able to join in."
"
A list was circulated for people to put their email addresses (or, failing that, mobile numbers)." This was for the purpose of arranging future meetings.
"
There was discussion about how to contact other coach passengers not at the meeting. One of the coach co-ordinators explained that they had contacted all the passengers whose contact details he had a record of. There had been a problem with the mobile phone, but all of them should have received the info by now."
These excerpts from the notes of the second meeting reasonably accurately reflect what I remember (I didn't take down any of the notes at either meeting, or suggest that we take down notes - now, I'm glad that we did take down notes). What happened at the second meeting was we waited a long time, as people arrived late using the slightly confusing map left at LARC. When it seemed that everyone had arrived that was going to, we started probably 40 minutes late. There was a lot of general discussion of the issues, and everyone had a chance to speak at any point. Eventually, it seemed a good point to poll the group and see if we could all agree on a decision. There was near concensus on the questions (see notes above), and consequently we ended up going with Bindmans as a judicial review case. It seemed like a fair process, there were notices about the meeting posted on e-mail lists, people were phoned by the coach collective, and a big effort was made by a lot of people to have a descent turn out at the second meeting. There wasn't some liberal pressure group forcing the outcome. People prepared for the meeting in various ways. The information distributed on behalf of Bindmans came as a result of a group of 6 passengers contacting Bindmans independently, just as the consultation from Moss and Co solicitor resulted from passengers independently contacting them.
At present there are about 70 coach passengers involved in the legal campaign. Anyone who wishes to join the legal campaign can e-mail
[email protected] or ring the phone number at the bottom of the front page of the website
http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk
We don't make legal campaign meeting times public because we don't want press/police/non-passengers in attendance. If people want to participate and we can verify that they were coach passengers, they are welcome to participate in the campaign. There are no spokespeople, or formal organisational roles in the group. I'm speaking about my own experiences in this e-mail, and they don't necessarily reflect the experiences of others in the legal campaigning group.
Cheers,
thedishbench
[Final note - why do I have the notes? Good question - I'm not entirely sure. At the second meeting I was acting as the liason with Bindmans. We opted to go with JR with Bindmans, and the person who had typed up the first meeting notes passed them on to me. It was felt that the next set of notes should go to the same place. As far as I recall we haven't taken formal notes at any other meetings - but the subsequent meetings have mostly been less important meetings about one or another aspect of the campaign - press work, organising the film showings, etc.]
I very often post on here pointing out the stupid and irrelevant purity of others...
