Gateway for peace or criminal damage? Court decides against Catholic Workers

Two Catholic Workers, Susan Clarkson and Martin Newell cp, were convicted of "criminal damage" at Watford Magistrates Court this morning (Thursday April 19th) following an act of witness to mark the Catholic 'Feast of the Holy Innocents' in December 2008 at Northwood Military Headquarters in north west London. Clarkson and Newell pled "not guilty" and defended themselves on legal, moral and religious grounds. Despite the prosecution admitting that no-one saw the pair entering the base, they agreed that they had cut through the perimeter fence to make the gateway and entered the base to pray for peace. They were found guilty of 'criminal damage' and ordered to pay fines and costs of £920 each. They will be refuse to pay, risking prison sentences.

In court, they stated that they had cut open the fence to make a “gateway for peace”, "to prepare a way for the Lord" and to open up public access to this highly secretive, mostly underground, base where a billion pound building project is going on.

The pair were arrested on December 29th 2008 after being inside the base for over half an hour. They had spent another half hour cutting the gateway into the base, leaving signs showing victims of aerial bombing in Afghanistan which Northwood would have been involved in through military planning, co-ordination and relaying communications. They also hung signs saying “Stop Bombing Afghanistan”, "Bring the Troops Home", “Gateway for Peace” and “Make a Way for the Lord”. On being stopped by military personnel, they handed in a 'Statement of Faith'. (see below)

Other members of Catholic Worker communities held vigil at the front entrance reading the names of British and Afghani war dead. During the arrests, sirens and public address messages from within the base could be heard announcing "Operation Round Up" and a return of all staff to buildings as the base's security response was put in place.

Northwood Military Headquarters (official name: Northwood JSU - 'Joint Support Unit') is the command centre for all British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a 43 acre site in suburban London accommodating over 2,000 military and civilian personnel. Just before Christmas two British soldiers had committed suicide in Basra while the 136th British soldier to die in Afghanistan was killed on Christmas Eve. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission estimates over 750 Afghani civilians have been killed by Western forces in 2008.

During cross examination, Newell's arresting officer agreed that the legality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had been questioned in the courts, and that to his knowledge to police had not investigated activities at Northwood HQ. In addition, the main prosecution witness, a member of NATO staff from the base, denied knowing about NATO involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

Susan Clarkson lives and works at the Oxford Catholic Worker house at St Francis House, Cowley Road OX4.

Martin Newell is a Catholic priest and a member of the Passionist Order. He lives and works with the London Catholic Worker at Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House, 16 De Beauvior Road, Hackney, London N1 5SU

Both live and work with refugees from areas of the world affected by violent conflict, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

CPT activists given four months

Ekklesia reports that the Swedish state has given to activists four months for although it dismissed SAABs claim for huge damages.

How many of us are ready to lose this much freedom to turn swords into ploughs? The courtroom gave the pair an opportunity to give their views on the importance of their actions.

We have at least two New Testament models for response to the courtroom.

1. Don't plan ahead, the spirit will lead you (Luke 12:11)
2. Keep silent and let the holy spirit defend you that way (Matt: 26:63)
   

Whatever we do in the courtroom, or upon arrest, we are generating stories - like the prophets - that go beyond the actions we perform and take on a life of their own.

Let's keep Martin Smedjeback and Anna Andersson in our thoughts / prayers.

No longer on bail

As of yesterday Keith and Les are no longer on bail for their development work at AWE Aldermaston. Building an animal sanctuary and permaculture area are still being considered.

The arresting officer was thanked for his participation in the event and we hope to see him again in the future for further brainstorming on how AWE Aldermaston can be transformed into a place of hope and prosperity.

Bail and some comments on the law, with thanks.

(from Blackstone’s Custody Officer Manual by Huw Smart 2006)

Conditional bail

Legislative provisions

S.3A(5) Bail Act 1976

Where a constable grants bail to a person no conditions shall be imposed under subsections (4), (5), (6) or (7) of s.3 of this Act unless it appears to the constable that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing that person from –

(a) failing to surrender to custody, or

(b) committing an offence while on bail, or

(c) interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person.

Section 3A Bail Act 1976

1. S 3 of this Act applies, in relation to bail granted by a custody officer under part IV of PACE 1984 in cases where the normal powers to impose conditions of bail are available to him, subject to the following modifications.

2. Subsection (6) does not authorise the imposition of a requirement to reside in a bail hostel or any requirement under para. (d) or (e)

Section 47(1A) PACE

The normal powers to impose conditions of bail shall be available to him where a custody officer releases a person on bail under s.37(7)(a) above or s.38(1) above (including that subsection as applied by s.40(10) above) but not in any other cases. In this subsection “the normal powers to impose bail” has the meaning given in s.3(6) of the Bail Act 1976

Section 3A(4) Bail Act 1976

Where a custody officer has granted bail in criminal proceedings he or another custody officer serving at the same police station may, at the rquest of the person to whom it was granted, vary the conditions of bail and in doing so he may impose conditions or more onerous conditions.

Section 7(3)(b) Bail Act 1976

A person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings and is under a duty to surrender into the custody of a court may be arrested without warrant by a constable –if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to break any of the conditions of his bail or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person has broken any of those conditions.

Page 425

“…but it is clear that imposing bail conditions should be viewed as an alternative to authorising detention after charge. When a court issues bail conditions, it must consider the same requirements as in s.3A(5) above (s3(6) of the Bail Act 1976) …”

“… Provided the custody officer or the court can justify a particular condition, there is no actual limit as to the kind of condition that may be imposed”…

Since conditional bail is an alternative to continued detention I looked at what Huw Smart has to say about remand in custody:

Section 38(1) PACE

Where a person arrested for an offence otherwise than under a warrant endorsed for bail is charged with an offence, the custody officer shall (subject to s.25 of the CJPOA 1994 [making bail virtually impossible for various very serious offences]), order his release from police detention, either on bail or without bail, unless-

(i) name or address cannot be ascertained…..

(ii) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested will fail to appear in court to answer to bail;

(iii) in the case of a person arrested for an imprisonable offence, the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested in necessary to prevent him from committing an offence;

(iv) in the case of a person arrested for an offence which is not an imprisonable offence, the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from causing physical injury to any other person or from causing loss of or damage to property;

(v) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from interfering with

(vi) the admin. of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular offence; or

(vii) the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary for his own protection.

From all this I gather our bail conditions were unlawful. He should have gone through these steps:

Unconditional release is the norm

Conditions can only be imposed if he is thinking he must remand in custody

Non imprisonable offence (which I was told very specifically is the case with byelaws, hence no fingerprinting etc) – only reasons = to prevent him causing physical injury to another person; or loss/damage to property; or interfering with admin. justice or investigation; or for own protection.

Since none of these conditions apply then he has no power to impose bail conditions.

p.392/3

When detention is necessary to prevent a further offence

"Evidence to detain a person under ss.(iii) above may also be provided by the PNC. The custody officer will need to examine the detainee's previous offending history to decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that if s/he were to be released on bail, further offences may be committed. The custody officer should take into account the offence for which the detainee has been charged on this occasion. For example, if the detainee only has previous convictions for shoplifting, and has been arrested and detained for a burglary, it would be difficult to justify further detention to prevent him/her from committing further burglaries. However, each case has to be taken on its merits. It should be noted that this section only applies to imprisonable offences committed by the detainee.

When detention is necessary to prevent injury, loss or damage

Where the custody officer believes that the detainee must be prevented from causing physical injury to any other person or from causing loss of or damage to property, statements from the investigating officer and witnesses may provide the necessary grounds. It should be noted that this section applies to non-imprisonable offences committed by the detainee

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
5A. — (1) Section 5 of this Act applies, in relation to bail granted by a custody officer under Part IV of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in cases where the normal powers to impose conditions of bail are available to him, subject to the following modifications.
(2) For subsection (3) substitute the following—

"(3) Where a custody officer, in relation to any person,—

(a) imposes conditions in granting bail in criminal proceedings, or

(b) varies any conditions of bail or imposes conditions in respect of bail in criminal proceedings,

the custody officer shall, with a view to enabling that person to consider requesting him or another custody officer, or making an application to a magistrates' court, to vary the conditions, give reasons for imposing or varying the conditions."

(3) For subsection (4) substitute the following—

"(4) A custody officer who is by virtue of subsection (3) above required to give reasons for his decision shall include a note of those reasons in the custody record and shall give a copy of that note to the person in relation to whom the decision was taken."

Judicial studies board website http://www.jsboard.co.uk/magistrates/hrtraining/mf_04.htm

5a Bail Act Applications
Both the Bail Act 1976 and the Convention state that a defendant has the right to bail.

The Bail Act 1976 provides conditions which must be complied with before a person is either remanded in custody or released on conditional bail. In a similar way Article 5 ensures that everyone has the Right to liberty. This Right can only be withheld in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law such as the Bail Act 1976.

For example, in one particular case (Matznetter v Austria 1969) the Court of Human Rights ruled on a remand in custody based on the fear of further offending. The Court of Human Rights stated that this could not be justified if the previous convictions were not comparable, either in nature or seriousness, with the charges preferred against the accused. Magistrates correctly applying the 1976 Bail Act would have come to the same conclusion as the Court of Human Rights. This case shows how much of our legislation is in tune with the Convention.

Archbold Part II – (Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1)

defendants accused or convicted of Non-imprisonable offences

Defendants to whom Part II applies:

1. where the offence or every offence of which the defendant is accused or convicted in proceedings is one which is not punishable with imprisonment the following provisions of the part of this Schedule apply

Exceptions to right to bail

2. The defendant need not be granted bail if-

(a) it appears to the court that, having been previously granted bail in criminal proceedings, he has failed to surrender to custody in accordance with his obligations under the grant of bail; and

(b) the court believes, in view of that failure, that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would fail to surrender to custody.

3. The Defendant need not be granted bail if he is in custody in pursuance of the sentence of a court or of any authority acting under any of the Service Acts.

4. The defendant need not be granted bail if:-

(a) having been released on bail in or in connection with the proceedings for the offence, he has been arrested under s.7 of this Act; and

(b) the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would fail to surrender to custody, commit an offence on bail or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice (whether in relation to himself or any other person)

Bail Act 1976

s.5.5 – must give reasons for imposing conditions via ss.3(4),(5),(6)

s.7 arrest for breach of bail conditions

PACE 1984

s.37(7)(a) – shall be released without charge and on bail for the purpose of enabling the DPP to make a decision under s.37B

s.37B re DPP charging or not, caution or conditional caution

s.37C breach of bail following release under s.37(7)(a) re failure to surrender

s.47 – bail after arrest.