# Fairford coach kidnap victory in Lords?



## laptop (Dec 13, 2006)

According to the Daily Mail, which I was only looking at bcs of the Ipswich thread, honest...

Ah, yes, also on the BBC so may be true!


----------



## Backatcha Bandit (Dec 13, 2006)

Well done, Jane.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 13, 2006)

get in 

so would I be right in thinking that anyone organising coaches to demo's in future should carry a copy of this ruling with them along with the bust cards?


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 13, 2006)

Fucking wicked!  

Right can we sue the bastards now?


----------



## marmite342 (Dec 13, 2006)

score- how do i get my compensation money then?


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 13, 2006)

...and the question is do we get more money now we've won both points?


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 13, 2006)

*rubs itchy palms*


----------



## winjer (Dec 13, 2006)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> ...and the question is do we get more money now we've won both points?


Yes. Your round...


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 13, 2006)

Yes this is good news, though I still don't agree with the liberals who suggested going that far   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...


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Dec 13, 2006)

from the BBC link at the bottom:



> Police lawyers had argued that rather than interfering with passengers' human rights, they were upholding them by protecting their lives, which would have been put at risk if they had broken into the air base.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 13, 2006)

..and a big thank you to the bods who have gone through the grief to get this case won.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 13, 2006)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> ..and a big thank you to the bods who have gone through the grief to get this case won.



Its been on national TV too...


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 13, 2006)

Saw this on the BBC site.

Excellent news.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 13, 2006)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd131206/lapor-1.htm 

The above is the full ruling by the law lords (doffs cap)....


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 13, 2006)

Congrats to all concerned.


----------



## e19896 (Dec 13, 2006)

erm well done but lets see the babylon have a nasty habit of erm revenege when shit is not going there way and it there paymaster who ruled against them so i do not have much faith but nice to see the babylon with egg on there face have you seen the tv coverage oh how the joy..


----------



## newbie (Dec 13, 2006)

I've always thought taking this as a test case was a bad idea, and for a couple of minutes earlier I thought I'd got it wrong.  

Then I heard the cop on the radio talking about _reviewing_ their legal powers and _considering_whether changes to the law are *needed*!

Celebrate now, squeeze every penny in compensation out of them.  But beware, I'm afraid i still think this one will come back and bite


----------



## laptop (Dec 14, 2006)

E2A: and as for newbie's predicted backlash: yes, very likely legislation may be introduced in 2007 to overturn this decision; it may well be passed in 2007 or 2008; and then there'll be another case, resulting in the legislation being effectively overturned in the Lords in about 2012 or at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in about 2014.

Which points to a surely-not-accidental flaw in the Human Rights Act mechanism: UK governments can pass and enforce shit laws and get away with it for up to a decade, then pass and enforce another one...


----------



## e19896 (Dec 14, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

>



fucking awsome cartoon made me laugh..


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2006)

e19896 said:
			
		

> fucking awsome cartoon made me laugh..



So something doesn't go in their favour they want to change the law - wankers - FFS, as if the world is coming to an end. 

If only I had the power to change the law when something didn't go in my favour... deary me.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 14, 2006)

marmite342 said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 14, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

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



^^is that the best you can do?


----------



## Thora (Dec 14, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

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


It's a pity we live in a world where coppers try to get away with this shit.  But sadly we do.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 14, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

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


it's a pity that we live in a world where coppers decide to take the law into their own hands repeatdly to the point where thousands of pounds of public money is needed to attempt to defend those actions...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 14, 2006)

I've not had the chance to read and think about the entire judgement in detail, but it would appear there are two principle points on which the judgment was given:

1. The interception of the coach at Lechlade was so far away from the anticipated breach of the peace in Fairford (in both time and geography) as to be too distant and

2. ALL the people on the coach, potential breachers of the peace and potential peaceful protesters were treated the same.

There is nothing in the judgment which will prevent the police intercepting people in order to prevent an imminent breach of the peace in the future.  The judgement has simply defined the "where and when" of that being lawful a damn sight closer to the actual breach of the peace, in terms of time, place and people anticiapted to be involved, than it has been before.  IOne of the judges actually lists some other tactics which could have been used and which would (presumably) have been far more likely to have been considered appropriate.

Beware of thinking that this judgment removes the police tactic / power entirely. It does nothing of the sort.  It simply defines the parameters within which it can be used far more tightly.

The judgement is, in my view, a fair one.  I personally have significant concerns over intercepting people going about their business too far away from any particular potential problem.  It is difficult to get it right but no-one says policing was meant to be easy.  I will be disappointed if the police do seek additional powers because I do not think they are needed - sensible application of the law as defined in the judgement, exercised professionally and skilfully, will be sufficient to deal with the difficulties encountered in policing public demonstrations.

I was also disappointed to hear the somewhat mealy-mouthed comments made by Gloucestershire Police.  Whilst they may be right in saying that the officers making the decision acted in good faith and without the luxury of hours and days to consider what to do (and the Court judgment says as much), now was not the time to say it, at least not to the public.  It should simply have been an expression of thanks to the Court for setting out the parameters of the power and an apology to those affected for having interfered with their Rights, as now decided by the Courts.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 14, 2006)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> ^^is that the best you can do?


No.  See post  ^^^

This was just a single response to a particularly selfish comment ...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 14, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I've not had the chance to read and think about the entire judgement in detail, but it would appear there are two principle points on which the judgment was given:



Hmmm.


----------



## winjer (Dec 14, 2006)

newbie said:
			
		

> Then I heard the cop on the radio talking about _reviewing_ their legal powers and _considering_whether changes to the law are *needed*!
> 
> Celebrate now, squeeze every penny in compensation out of them.  But beware, I'm afraid i still think this one will come back and bite


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'm extra pleased with this verdict as I know it will annoy Mick Caldwell


----------



## winjer (Dec 14, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

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


You'd rather people sought redress through _other means_? Me too.


----------



## TAE (Dec 14, 2006)

So are these cops going to be in trouble?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 14, 2006)

TAE said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 14, 2006)

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 (Dec 14, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Probably not.


----------



## untethered (Dec 14, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 14, 2006)

winjer said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 14, 2006)

untethered said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 15, 2006)

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 (Dec 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 15, 2006)

Attica said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				Bingham said:
			
		

> 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:




			
				Rodger said:
			
		

> *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 (Dec 15, 2006)

newbie said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 15, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 16, 2006)

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 (Dec 16, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 16, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 16, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 16, 2006)

TAE said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> 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:




			
				marmite342 said:
			
		

> "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 (Dec 17, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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:
> 
> ...


How do you know what marmite's involvement was?


----------



## soulman (Dec 17, 2006)

Volt said:
			
		

> How do you know what marmite's involvement was?



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


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 17, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2006)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2006)

untethered said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2006)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 17, 2006)

untethered said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 18, 2006)

untethered said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 18, 2006)

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 (Dec 18, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 4, 2013)

> *Fairford test case - judgment on 8 February 2013*
> 
> Date: 4 February 2013
> 
> ...


 


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


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> 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.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

I did wonder whether to @ you and solicit an opinion on Bindman's


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> I did wonder whether to @ you and solicit an opinion on Bindman's


i am reserving judgment on bindmans until i see if i've got any money.

although to be honest i don't think i'll change the opinion i have previously expressed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm a good charitable cause.


 
I now feel rather nervous. A fair bit rides on this cash.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I now feel rather nervous. A fair bit rides on this cash.


let's see how we go on friday.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 8, 2013)

http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-ev...ord-military-base-win-a-landmark-victory-case

Result! 5k each


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

smokedout said:


> http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-ev...ord-military-base-win-a-landmark-victory-case
> 
> Result! 5k each


well, five grand for the people who pissed in lunchboxes or were aged peace campaigners anyway

4.2 for the most of us


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 8, 2013)

from link in #65 :

"The Judge goes on: “the vast majority of them – as this case has proved – were decent hardworking people who had never been in trouble with the police… to my mind their intentions were epitomised by gentlemen who had a beard and appeared to be about 60 years of age getting off one of the coaches with a sign attached around his neck. The sign read _‘Wanstead Quakers – we totally oppose War. No ends can ever justify such means.’_ Surely the police officers dealing with this situation on the ground must have realised that they were not dealing with practised hard line anarchists.” (para 84)"

I'm told that Chris Gwyntopher is actually quite practiced  
at what age do I become a "gentleman" - or do I need a sign around my neck?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 8, 2013)

ChrisD said:


> from link in #65 :
> 
> "The Judge goes on: “the vast majority of them – as this case has proved – were decent hardworking people who had never been in trouble with the police…


 
I'm sick of this shit. Decency and hardness of work, even if they could be quantified, have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you are entitled to go about your lawful business unmolested by police. Nor do past arrests or convictions. The clear implication in this judgement is that if it was a busload of crusty anarchists then, regardless of their intentions or the (lack of) evidence against them, it would've been OK to stop them in this way.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 8, 2013)

I think if they'd been a coach load of hard core anarchists there would probably been enough evidence to hold them to prevent a breach of the peace.
  Bolt croppers paint bombs etc etc.


----------



## newbie (Feb 8, 2013)

I remember being quite concerned that this test case might turn into a complete reversal, and confirm that the police actually do have powers to temporarily imprison anyone they please and drive them anywhere they fancy. The judge has rejected that out of hand, I'm very pleased to have been wrong.

Wrong up to a point: the one SF made above. What the police should have done, according to the judge, was reassess the situation once it became clear that the coaches didn't actually contain any significant threats. He doesn't really go into their powers if the stuff they found was more incriminating. He also thinks it relevant to say "_no attempt was made to ascertain affiliations or intentions. On the contrary, individual protesters were given neither the opportunity nor any incentive to explain their positions._" huh?

Can of worms


but the judgement is worth reading


_ Since that time she has been put off protesting and felt that the police had abused their powers without any qualms whatsoever. She thought the police had flouted the law and had a blatant disregard for the democratic process. It would be impossible to disagree with those sentiments. _

...

_He said that they had simply been imprisoned on a coach and forcibly removed from one part of the country to another. _
_111.Again, one could not argue with that as an accurate statement_.


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 8, 2013)

Thanks for posting the judgement.   Clearly a victory BUT as S Frank says #68 judgements being made on irrelevant stuff.
"........... as he had been an active WOMBLE and a protester on previous violent protests it would be difficult to credit any claims as to humiliation or fear in his case. "  
implies a double standard or that's it's impossible to be shit scared twice.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 9, 2013)

> 21. ...Gloucestershire Police were aware, presumably from what they gleaned as a result of arrests, that the WOMBLES had taken part in the protest on 23rd February 2003 when the main gate at the site was forced open followed by a major incursion into the base. Understandably, the police were concerned about this group together with another group called “Civil Disobedience”.
> 
> 22. The police were also undoubtedly aware of the WOMBLES website and under the heading “News. Smash USAF Fairford! Info on coaches”.


 
Given the recent exposure of WOMBLES spy-cop 'Rod Richardson' (undercover from 2000-2003) it does make one wonder how much of this 'awareness' was from within Gloucestershire Police and how much of it came from outside.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 9, 2013)

> 40. ...[ACC] Lambert records that on that morning *he was made aware that three coaches and a transit van containing the WOMBLES and Disobedience Action groups had left London* and were travelling towards Fairford. At 10.40am he had a meeting with Detective Superintendant Henry and as a result of that meeting he decided that vehicles should be stopped prior to their arrival in Fairford. At 10.45 in the silver commander’s log the following is recorded:-
> 
> “*Based on intelligence received* it is understood that three coaches and a van are en route from LONDON carrying items and equipment to disrupt the protest today and gain entry to the airbase. The protesters are the ‘Wombles’. A Section 60 is in place and I have asked for an objective to be made for the Bronzes in charge of the two PSU’s on intercept duties to intercept the coaches and van to search and identify any items that may be used. Items on the vehicle are to be seized if they are offending articles and if that is the case, the coaches and van are to be turned around and sent back towards the Metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Police will be asked to pick them up at the M25. They are not to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace at that particular time, if that is the only offence apparent, as I do not consider there to be an imminent breach of the peace. However they are to be warned if articles are found on the coaches and they arrive at FAIRFORD then I will consider them to be here intent on causing disruption and a breach of the peace and they may find themselves arrested.”
> 
> 41.At 11am, based on the “*specific intelligence*” received about the WOMBLES travelling to Fairford, the Section 60 authority was extended to include two further roads. Some time during that morning approximately 70 police officers were deployed in the small town of Lechlade in order to detain the coaches. Although Mr. Lambert referred to a transit van being stopped, it seems to me that the police intelligence was somewhat flawed in that no transit van was travelling with the coaches. *Plainly the police intelligence about the transit van must have been incorrect*.


 
And whence came this 'specific' yet incorrect 'intelligence?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 9, 2013)

an entire decade on.

Glad this got won, but I can't help feeling that the state actually won this one by dragging it out for 10 years.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 9, 2013)

free spirit said:


> an entire decade on.
> 
> Glad this got won, but I can't help feeling that the state actually won this one by dragging it out for 10 years.


 
At least a legal precedent is now set of sorts.


----------



## wiskey (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm glad you got a good result.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 10, 2013)

Only just picked up on this latest, and I second wiskey's post


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> At least a legal precedent is now set of sorts.


Yeh don't use bindman's if you want a quick result


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 10, 2013)

Or don't legally challenge the Police/the Government/etc?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 10, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Or don't legally challenge the Police/the Government/etc?


If we'd all just sued back in 2003 we'd have had a pay-off round the time of the g8 in '05.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 10, 2013)

Fair dos, as you can probably guess I'm not too clued up on all the details yet, but I will read through this thread properly (when I'm not just about to crash).


----------



## laptop (Feb 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh don't use bindman's if you want a quick result


 
Not sure how another firm could have obtained a quicker result, especially given how the police have behaved.

I haven't had time to read the judgement. Is there any mention of the police conduct of the case in there? Wasn't any mention in the compensation amounts at the end...


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2013)

none that I recall.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 25, 2013)

Worth reading this and the comment at the bottom......

http://netpol.org/2013/07/25/jason-bishop-new-allegations-of-undercover-policing-of-protest/


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 28, 2014)

smokedout said:


> http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-ev...ord-military-base-win-a-landmark-victory-case
> 
> Result! 5k each



Only just spotted that former ALF bigwig, the apparently-never-nicked John Beggs, was the QC representing the Gloucestershire Chief Constable


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 21, 2016)

This has been brewing a while - as the Pitchford Inquiry picks up speed, lawyers representing some of the Fairford activists have accused police of concealing from judges hearing the case the presence and involvement of at least two undercover police officers, including ‘Rod Richardson’.

Says _Channel 4 News_' Simon Israel:



> In the submission they argue that two undercover officers were embedded in the protest movement, helped organise the trip and fed intelligence to the police operation, that was ultimately declared unlawful.



Exclusive: lawyers claim Met lied to judges over secret policing | Simon Israel on Home Affairs

Says Rob Evans in _The Guardian_:



> Now the protesters are alleging they had been infiltrated by two undercover officers who could have provided crucial evidence to bolster their case and cut short “lengthy, stressful and expensive litigation”.
> 
> They say the concealment of the spies from the judges is part of a continuing cover-up of the covert infiltration of political groups and could have distorted the justice system.



Police accused of concealing role of undercover officers from judges


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 21, 2016)

Does this mean we could get some more compo?


----------



## laptop (Mar 21, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Does this mean we could get some more compo?


I'm knackered and I've forgotten precisely why that's next to impossible. I'll try to remember tomorrow.


----------

