128 Serious crime act - Guilty: 06/10/21

Court date

Court:

 

CoL

Hearing date:

 

06/10/2021

Bench (DJ or JPs)

 

DJ Pilling

Charged with:

 

Section 9 of 128 serious crime act: Trespass on a protected site

Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.

 

The three defendants had climbed the into the grounds of the Palace of Westminster (Parliament) RC and BW climbed up the scaffolding on Big Ben and dropped a banner calling for African colonial country reparations and dept  cancellation in the wake of the pandemic, climate change and BLM. DP climbed in but stayed at the bottom of the scaffold.

Raj led with arguments based on Human Rights, Ziegler, necessity and challenged prosecution statements on health and safety, wasting police time, ministers time and contractors time, visibility of signage alongside other aspects of the prosecution case including that the crime was premeditated and the Palace of Westminster was a protected site and part of the national security infrastructure. Dura (Montague's – Zach) argued section 6 of the Human Rights Act.

RC, self representing, presented a very well researched argument from the witness box. He drew on the other organisations involved including CAFOD and the WHO/IMF Dept Service Suspension Initiative and the need to influence parliament and raise public awareness of the issues of mounting south world dept. By his protest RC was convinced that he could influence the debate.

The case rests on Zeigler, although necessity has not been deemed inadmissible yet.  Raj / HJA, representing co-defendant DP, maintained that lawful excuse is considered in relation to the section 10 and to a lesser extent 11 of the human rights act; that Ziegler is not confined to obstruction, that the arrest, charge and sentencing all impinge on the defendants human rights.  The test is to be made in the court and the DJ’s decision, in relation to Ziegler and proportionality, is valid in this case.  The arguments were complex.  The prosecution case against Ziegler and necessity was well argued but Raj had more knowledge, which was demonstrated.  The DJ was hard pressed to keep up and it took time to sift through the legal arguments. 

With the evidence and legal arguments complete the trial is effectively completed but the DJ decided she needed more time to consider her verdict.  VERDICT AND SENTANCING was heard on 04/11/21 10am.

JUDGE’S SUMMING UP:  She rejected necessity on the grounds of no imminent threat and Ziegler on the basis that it was a completely different offence and articles 10 1ne 11 are not applicable to a protected site. She said that the police had been disrupted in their duty and that was a consideration.  For these reasons she found them guilty. However she accepted that the defendants had adequately considered the construction workers, covid and health and safety. She appreciated the genuine commitment and strength of feeling of the defendants, the issues they were protesting, the fact that the issue had been properly addressed to Members of Parliament both here and abroad and there was a link with the legitimist BLM and minority rights issues. For these reasons she decided to wave any court costs apart from the £22 surcharge.

The three, with Raj and Dura all agreed that an appeal would be unlikely to succeed and that it could prejudice other trials, which would be easier to win or appeal.

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?

 

yes

Did defence witness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?

yes

What was the verdict?

 

Guilty

What was the sentence?

 

12 months CD each

What costs were awarded?

 

£22 each surcharge.

Please add anything else relevant.

 

Africa Rising attended both days.