Court:
|
City of London Magistrates |
Hearing date:
|
21st February 2023 |
Bench (DJ or JPs)
|
DJ Naw |
Charged with:
|
Breach of Section 14 on 10 Apr 2022 at Vauxhall Bridge |
Represented by:
|
Self |
Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.
|
Initially defendant said he didn’t need to cross-examine either the senior officer nor the arresting officer. DJ Naw said he would like to, so Insp Dickinson appeared on live link and the arresting officer was present. Prosecution (Ms. Anthea Moore) was helpful in concentrating on the reasons for the Section 14 order. This allowed Defendant to cross-examine on the reasons (holding up fire and ambulances, the number of bus routes, etc.) and how the police had prevented emergency vehicles passage, not XR. He also questioned the lateness of the S14 - if things were so bad, why had it not been ordered earlier when traffic was busier? DJ Naw, seeing how vague the S14 was, asked for the Form 3176C (which is the S14 order itself) to be produced. It didn’t give an alternate place to protest. The area of concern was just “junction of Vauxhall Bridge and Millbank”, the other 2 roads of that intersection were not mentioned. The BWV of the arresting officer was shown. He approached oncce to warn defendant, he came back to make the arrest. Both times he approached from defendant’s side. defendant had earplugs in (shown at the end of the BWV when he removed them). defendant showed no sign of noticing the officer and said that he not heard him. defendant highlighted this and DJ Naw asked if the officer if he knew defendantt understood English. No, sir. A new rule has been instigated by Security (I don’t know if it’s local or not) where protest defendants must be in the glassed-in dock, even if they are self-reping. He also had his mobile phone taken (and returned afterwards). DJ Naw insisted he obey this even though he knew of defendant’s hearing problems. THe DJ relaxed this later to allow defendant to cross-examine, then allowed him to stay out. Defendant, in his defence emphasised his hearing problem. The DJ had parts of the BWV shown again which emphasised the lack of communication. Defendant was not allowed to give his motivation - the suicidal effect the climate emergency is having on his daughter. In summing up he emphasised the vagaries of the Section 14 and his hearing on arrest. |
Was defence evidence submitted in writing?
|
Not known. He had worked with HJA but Legal Aid didn’t come through, so he self-rep’d. That didn’t stop CPS still sending everything to HJA.
|
Did defence witness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?
|
Defendant was his only witness. He was cross-examined. |
What was the verdict?
|
Not Guilty |
What was the sentence?
|
n/a |
What were the court costs?
|
Only travel costs |
Please add anything else relevant.
|
DJ Naw took around 40 mins to deliberate. He pointed out the flaws in the Section 14, he noted XR’s blue light policy, he stated the lateness of ordering the S14. He then briefly emphasised the poor arrest procedure. He finished by saying there was no doubt that the Section 14 was too vague, too late. It would have been better to use S135, Wilful Obstruction of a Highway. |