[Dogs of Blackpool]

The use of Anti Terror Laws by the Polcie at the Arms Expo in London has been viewed by the High COurt who declared that teh Police did not abuse them.

Civil rights campaigners have failed to persuade the High Court that anti-terrorism laws were used unlawfully on demonstrators at an international arms fair.

Pressure group Liberty is backing a protester and a freelance journalist who were stopped and searched during demonstrations against Europe's largest arms fair in east London's Docklands last month.

Journalist Pennie Quinton and student Kevin Gillan wanted a judicial review of the way they were treated on 9 September.

But on Friday the High in central London Court refused their request.

BBC News

-----------END------

At last the Courts start to show support for the the police service

[Spartacus]

:smile:

[Gforceuk]

good for the court...

these civil rights protesters diverted police away from other duties with their protests and could have given terrorists a diversion for other activities....shame they cant be charged with wasting police time...

[karmapolice]

Yeah, pesky people exercising their legal right to protest - string 'em up!



The case was not about their right to protest, before we get going on this old chesnut, but against the laws used in relation to the Stop Search exercises and the detentions therein.

Let's be clear on that one.

[stephen]

for once i find myself agreeing with karma!
My problem is that the police used legislation not intended for the use in question.

[Tango Mike]

those pesky kids, going about their lawful business excercising their right to protest in a democracy.

I never thought I'd hear me say this but I hope they take it to the European Court.

[Spartacus]

stephen, on Nov 1 2003, 08:35 AM, said:

for once i find myself agreeing with karma!
My problem is that the police used legislation not intended for the use in question.

Thats funny.. a High Court judge with all the facts from all sides presented to him thinks different. Being searched doesn't prohibit from protesting..

This post has been edited by Bert: 01 November 2003 - 04:35 PM

[Tango Mike]

yes the great judicary, the same ones who had to ask who Noel Gallagher and Oasis were?, or maybe the Justice who thought Gazza was Opera Singer for example?

[Pulpculture]

I'm not comfortable with the outcome.

[Gforceuk]

* removed due to not wanting rock the apple cart *

This post has been edited by Gforceuk: 07 April 2004 - 06:08 PM

[Tango Mike]

Gforceuk, on Nov 1 2003, 05:02 PM, said:

hmm who cares who they are to be honest....i dont partic care if they didnt know who they were...if they had the facts and came to a decision..i'm sure it was a fair and informed one

I don't particulary care who they are myself but I have least heard of both of them and it demonstrates how out of touch they are - it is interesting to see this touching faith in the judicial system that people have though.

[Dogs of Blackpool]

Bert, on Nov 1 2003, 04:34 PM, said:

stephen, on Nov 1 2003, 08:35 AM, said:

for once i find myself agreeing with karma!
My problem is that the police used legislation not intended for the use in question.

Thats funny.. a High Court judge with all the facts from all sides presented to him thinks different. Being searched doesn't prohibit from protesting..

I completely agree with Bert, whilst I do not have blind faith in our courts.. But the Police acted in accordance with the Laws, some disgruntled peace activists, were not happy and took it to the courts for a Judicial review which has been declined.

I can not see how the police are still being accused to acting improperly, if they do decide to take the case to the European, don’t forget European Courts decision are not legally binding on the UK.

How can people both on this forum and the General Public accuse the police of abusing their powers when they are not in full possession of the facts and did not have the briefing and intelligence the Gold/Silver commander had.

[Spartacus]

Tango Mike, on Nov 1 2003, 04:44 PM, said:

yes the great judicary, the same ones who had to ask who Noel Gallagher and Oasis were?, or maybe the Justice who thought Gazza was Opera Singer for example?

Umm.. I'm not sure if knowledge of pop groups or opera is a prerequisite for the bench.. but I'm pretty sure you have to have done law for a few weeks........

[karmapolice]

I'm finding the continual attack on peace protestors etc very tiresome on this site. Certain members seem to take great delight in belittling them, and labelling them all as left-wing, tree-hugging hippies.

Anyway, that aside, let's clarify a few things.

The challenge that was brought to the Court was to challenge the way that Section 44 had been used in this instance.

The wider public interest issue raised during this case is clear; although in this specific instance, it was deemed that the police carried out their duties legally.

Quote

How can people both on this forum and the General Public accuse the police of abusing their powers when they are not in full possession of the facts and did not have the briefing and intelligence the Gold/Silver commander had.

Oh that's easy - we use our intelligence and powers of reasoning to challenge decisions which we object to, or pieces of legislation that are objectionable.

You seem to credit the judicial system with more intelligence than the everyone else, which I would take great exception to and consider patronising in the extreme. Many people are questioning the legality and basis of the anti-terrorism laws, esp in relation to S44.

The fact that we can 'legally' lock people up indefinately without trial on suspicion alone is staggering.

This issue is a highly emotive one, and given the wide implications for all of us, I find it depressing that you have such blind faith in legal system in this area; this Government have been instrumental in pushing through a muddled and rushed piece of legislation in relation to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001.

Of course, if you're happy with a piece of legislation that denies access to detainees to legal advice and protection under certain circumstances, then that's your call I guess.

If one of your family had been held in jail (without a trial or official explanations as to the reason for your detention, I might add) for two years, then you might start to understand why people are getting so bothered about this.

Disgruntled?

You bet.

[Carl]

It worries me that serving officers still doubt the legality/ethicacy of the use made of legitimate powers, now confirmed as having NOT been misused by a High Court judge, you still choose to believe our anti-media representation & minority direct action groups who're quite clearly not above breaking or bending the law .......... significantly ?

Cheers

Ho Hum, It's a funny old world but I thought we we're all on the same side .......

Regards,

Carl
(& yes, some peace protestors might be exactly that, unfortunately there are a number who aren't & renta-mob do like to tag along)

[karmapolice]

Are we not open to criticism?

Of course we're on the same side, but we don't actually all have to have the same lines of thought.

Quote

(& yes, some peace protestors might be exactly that, unfortunately there are a number who aren't & renta-mob do like to tag along)

Some people would probably say that same thing in reverse about the police. Throw in "right wing facist" into the above, et voila. It's a two-way street we walk.

Oh, and expressing opinions of disagreement with legislation is NOT the same as not doing the same function. Some of us can actually draw the distinction.

[Spartacus]

Quote

I'm finding the continual attack on peace protestors etc very tiresome on this site. Certain members seem to take great delight in belittling them, and labelling them all as left-wing, tree-hugging hippies.

I can see one comment on this thread which I would say is a comment about the protesters themselves. Disagreeing doesn't mean attacking!

Quote

You seem to credit the judicial system with more intelligence than the everyone else, which I would take great exception to and consider patronising in the extreme.

Nobodies questioning your intelligence.. however, High court judges are ex-barristers, been doing the job for a hell of a long time.. and interpret the law according to case and legistlation. As a Special, sadly, I wouldn't want to go toe to toe with a high court judge on a point of law. Given I've only had 14 weekends direct training on the matter... and he does it for a living.

Quote

Of course, if you're happy with a piece of legislation that denies access to detainees to legal advice and protection under certain circumstances, then that's your call I guess.

We are talking about S.44 anti terrorism act and S.81 PACE. Remember out elected MP's make laws, judges don't. Democracy in action. You are talking about another section, besides which the judge only decides if the action was lawful.. the Home Secretary is responsible for approving detentions under the Terrorism Act.

Quote

If one of your family had been held in jail (without a trial or official explanations as to the reason for your detention, I might add) for two years, then you might start to understand why people are getting so bothered about this.

If this has happened to you directly, I can empathise with your feelings Karma.. but again MP's enact laws.. not judges.

This post has been edited by Bert: 02 November 2003 - 05:11 PM

[karmapolice]

No, there are plenty of others that do though.

Let's step outside of the box of being a Special for second, yes? You don't have to a be a High Court Judge to disagree with a High Court Judge. And we don't have to look very far for cases where they have been (spectacularly) wrong in the past. The Groups such as Liberty who lead this action themselves employ a number of legal experts and would have considered this carefully before making the case.

Let's not talk about the elected MPs issue here, as we will start going off on a tangent, esp since the voting system allowed to Labour to gain over 60% of the seats with only 26% of the electorate voting for them. The 2001 election recorded the lowest ever turnout. 15% more people abstained than voted for Labour and 17 Million people didn't bother at all.

And besides, do we just wash ourselves of involvement with these issues because (some of us) get off our backsides every few years to stick a cross in a box? I would hope not.

The important part of this case is that, had the case gone the other way, he could have ordered a Judicial review of the entire piece of Statute. I think it's very significant that he allowed an appeal to go ahead. The results of that will be most interesting.

[Spartacus]

karmapolice, on Nov 2 2003, 05:19 PM, said:

No, there are plenty of others that do though.

Let's step outside of the box of being a Special for second, yes? You don't have to a be a High Court Judge to disagree with a High Court Judge. And we don't have to look very far for cases where they have been (spectacularly) wrong in the past. The Groups such as Liberty who lead this action themselves employ a number of legal experts and would have considered this carefully before making the case.

Let's not talk about the elected MPs issue here, as we will start going off on a tangent, esp since the voting system allowed to Labour to gain over 60% of the seats with only 26% of the electorate voting for them. The 2001 election recorded the lowest ever turnout. 15% more people abstained than voted for Labour and 17 Million people didn't bother at all.

And besides, do we just wash ourselves of involvement with these issues because (some of us) get off our backsides every few years to stick a cross in a box? I would hope not.

The important part of this case is that, had the case gone the other way, he could have ordered a Judicial review of the entire piece of Statute. I think it's very significant that he allowed an appeal to go ahead. The results of that will be most interesting.

Democracy doesn't stop at the ballot box you are correct. However, if people are apathetic towards the government, perhaps a law of satutory voting should be enacted? (I'd be the first to sign up).. or change the system of voting to proportional representation. Great, but we still need a functioning government.. even if 26% of the electorate only voted for them.

I should iterate that I'm very much in favour of peaces right to protest.. and even to a lesser degree some forms of direct and indirect action. I try to go on duty when a protest occurs, to facilitate a protest.

We'll see on the appeal...

However, I think it would be very dangerous to amend legistlation which gives an officer the right to search in the case of terrorism.. where he believes however improbable... the power saves lives. Sir John Stevens has already said that serveral attack have been averted...

This post has been edited by Bert: 02 November 2003 - 05:50 PM

[QBD]

karmapolice, on Nov 2 2003, 06:19 PM, said:

The important part of this case is that, had the case gone the other way, he could have ordered a Judicial review of the entire piece of Statute.

Really? How?

An application for judicial review only involves the way in which a piece of legislation was used in that particular instance. The courts have no jurisdiction (bar a weak one under HRA) to review legislation and have steadfastly refused to do so many times in the past.

[karmapolice]

Yes, it was HRA to which I inferred. However, you are quite correct in that they are relucatant (slight understatement) to go down this road, for a variety of perfectly understandable and valid reasons.

A shame really, as it would faciliate an excellent peer-review process.

[Tango Mike]

Quote

Umm.. I'm not sure if knowledge of pop groups or opera is a prerequisite for the bench.. but I'm pretty sure you have to have done law for a few weeks........

An interesting thought, that law is an absolute that exists in a vacuum outside of society.

"There is nothing in the bill that will interfere in the right of people to protest peacefully "

"The legislation is not intended to deal with alleged offences properly dealt with under the existing criminal law. Neither will it in any way curb individuals' democratic rights to protest peacefully.''

Hmm, both quotes were from Jack Straw prior to the introduction of the terrorism act.

The irony is the activities of the arms fair (trading of weapons) were far more likely to lead to terrorism (weapons getting into the wrong hands) than the protests against it.

Anyway to sum this thread , Some of us are for it and some of us are against it, so lets agree to disagree? :-)

This post has been edited by Tango Mike: 02 November 2003 - 07:26 PM

[stephen]

Bert, on Nov 1 2003, 05:34 PM, said:

stephen, on Nov 1 2003, 08:35 AM, said:

for once i find myself agreeing with karma!
My problem is that the police used legislation not intended for the use in question.

Thats funny.. a High Court judge with all the facts from all sides presented to him thinks different. Being searched doesn't prohibit from protesting..

so now we are all behind judges? strange then that there are numerous threads on this forum questioning their ability
The point i was trying to make was that i didnt agree with the way this new legislation was used.MOP where demonstrating against an arms fair which IMHO was their right.
As has been stated in this thread none of us where privy to the facts that where available to the senior officer dealing with the situation.
I for one am all for any legislation which makes our country safer but i feel that on this occasion it was inappropriate given that it was(MOP just like u and i ) making their opinion known.I have no great knowledge of the law as i am sure all on here will know but i was voicing my opinion on a forum where participation is encouraged.

[Whopper Macbig]

My thoughts exactly Stephen - as I was reading down through all the glowing tributes towards the judiciary I was beginning to wonder if I was in the right site!!!

Whatever way the wind blows I suppose ..................

[Gubmentcheez]

Yup, well said, judges get continually slated on this board and now they are all of a sudden they are "intelligent"(when it suits) and shouldnt be challenged.