superintendent terry, who lost in court today
the judge first considered the charge against barbara tucker that she 'participated in a demonstration on the 26th march for which no authorisation had been received'. the defence pointed out that she had been arrested along with parliament square protestor brian haw, and that it was reasonable to suggest that she was either part of his then authorised demo, or that she was carrying on a solo protest of her own. either way, the judge dismissed the charge as 'void ab initio', which is legal jargon meaning that the case didn't have any legs right from the start and should never have been brought. it can imply corruption, which is something barbara has always alleged.
later, the judge was asked to over-rule the conditions of bail set earlier in a separate case against barbara (see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350369.html).
superintendent terry wanted her bail conditions to be widened, arguing that in their present form they were too ambiguous. after hearing the background, district judge snow agreed that they did seem ambiguous and so offered a rather more just solution. he ordered the conditions to be lifted, so barbara is now on unconditional bail, and the threat of imprisonment is lifted.
barbara left the court jubilant while terry looked crestfallen at the slap in the face that charing cross police had been given.
there are more socpa cases imminent, but the most important one coming soon is a high court hearing of the cases of maya evans and others, where the law will be shown to be incompatible with human rights.