Court:
|
COL court 1 |
Hearing date:
|
13/7 |
Bench (DJ or JPs)
|
JP Woodcock |
Charged with:
|
S!4 |
Represented by:
|
|
Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.
|
Judge: “Sect 14 on 2nd Sept. lawful – based heavily on direction of 1st Sept.” Pointed out that he had just had a case where he had decided that the evidence of Deputy District Commissioner Rolfe and re S14 and had agreed that it was lawful. JW: ‘ I’m sure that you are not saying that you will find both defendants guilty’ (approx words) Judge: “ Of course” Prosecution : explained that one officer had not been found but they were trying to find him Judge: asked Mikey if she wanted the officer to be in court Mikey: said that she wanted to clarify with him a matter of geography Judge: agreed and prosecution kept looking for officer Then gave a summary of DCC Rolfe’s S14 statements re parliament square . Quoted Zeiglar-right to protest and right of assembly ‘not a trump card ‘ need to think of the rights of others Para 63-65 Zeiglar –agreed by supreme court Consider location and how it affects others Case of Thaker (I think) – removed necessity
Checked if Mikey had received a copy of Rolfe’s statement. Said ‘No’ so he instructed that she should be given this. DCC Rolfe: (on video link)
Mikey (moved to defence council seat and addressed DCC Rolf She asked R a variety of questions about those who might be affected , particularly civil servants, tourists and schools and the fact that they were not back at the time. She also asked R is she had looked at quantitative data and whether there was evidence that the House had been affected by noise in previous demonstrations. DCC Rolfe: replied that she read reports for her information. She also said that she was planning in case schools were back, that there were lots of other users apart from tourists and that she had made no restrictions on noise. ( I have the actual questions and answers if you need them) Judge: Asked R how far away from the square would it be acceptable for protests to take place R: to provide an exhaustive description of areas included would have been impossible Mikey questioned arresting officer: (on video) Asked him about the cordon –said he wasn’t part of it and that he was in a different part of the square- couldn’t remember the exact road she was on when he arrested her Mikey questioned by prosecution council. Worked as economist for DEFRA- evidence related people Buddhist interconnectedness of all things –work to eliminate suffering Quoted David Attenborough Most vulnerable-most affected- but did not cause it Had lots of facts and figures about climate change Sitting in the road was a way of saying that it is a crises-personal symbolic action Was meditating in a road that did not block access to parliament There had been an interfaith vigil in the square with Arch Bishop of Canterbury Statues in Parliament Square to Gandhi and Mandela –civil disobedience Hansard said no disruption of business Emergency services used to dealing with changes in routes Prosecutor: emphasized the disruption to ambulances and risk to lives
|
Was defence evidence submitted in writing?
|
Not to my knowledge
|
Did defencewitness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?
|
See above |
What was the verdict?
|
Guilty |
What was the sentence?
|
9 month C.D |
What costs were awarded?
|
£322 Prosecution asked for £460 |
Charge
Outcome
Court date