Smash EDO is a local campaign (Brighton) against EDO MBM Technology Ltd, on Home Farm Road, who manufacture release mechanisms for Paveway bombs supplied to Raytheon and used in Iraq, amongst other things. In May last year, 5 activists got
on the roof and hung banners. They are charged with aggravated trespass. It's been an interesting day in court - circular logic from the judge and a distinct lack of evidence from the prosecution.
on the roof and hung banners. They are charged with aggravated trespass. It's been an interesting day in court - circular logic from the judge and a distinct lack of evidence from the prosecution.
Aggravated trespass requires actual or intended intimidation, obstruction or disruption of a lawful activity. The defendants have been arguing that EDO MBM's supply of bomb-release mechanisms used in Iraq is unlawful in UK law under the International Criminal Court Act (ICCA) 2001 which prohibits 'conduct ancillary to war crimes' - that is aiding the commission of war crimes.
The judge tried to silence this argument by a variety of means. Firstly, she said she had no authority to rule on issues of war crimes. The defence pointed out that the ICCA clearly states war crimes committed abroard are incorporated into English Law. Then the judge simply stated "I don't know if I'm prepared to hear this argument, I don't see its relevance". The defence pointed out the lawfulness or otherwise of EDO's business was central to the charge. Then, the judge said that any how, she'd seen no evidence of war crimes, so the matter was moot. This was a bit ridiculous, as every time the defence tried to present evidence of war crimes the judge intervened to prevent it.
The defence said they could present a video of one incident in which a US F-16 bombs a crowd of civilians in Fallujah. The judge said she couldn't let it be shown because no evidence of war crimes had been presented (because the judge wouldn't let it be). The judge then proceeded with some wonderful circular logic that she couldn't allow evidence of war crimes to be presented as it hadn't been presented already, because she wouldn't let it. With that, the court adjourned for the judge to go away and make up an excuse (sorry, adjudicate). After a long break the judge returned and said she couldn't think of an excuse (sorry, hadn't made a ruling) and simply changed the subject!
The entire prosecution evidence is: 4 employees of EDO, who one month after the protest made statements claiming intimidating abuse ("shame on you!", "murderers") was shouted at them by unidentified persons on the roof. There were 30+ police officers within 100 metres, none of whom made any reference to shouting. Neither did the arresting officers make any mention of shouting. Furthermore, the police camera team didn't film any shouting, even though they were present when it allegedly took place. The prosecution picked out sections of the police video to show the judge, which showed protestors sunbathing and one eating a sanwich on the roof - scary, subersive criminal activities for sure. That's the prosecution case . . . we look forward to tomorrow's exciting instalment! That's all folks!
IF YOU'RE IN THE AREA PLEASE COME ALONG TO THE NOISE DEMO AT EDO'S FACTORY, HOME FARM ROAD, JUST OFF LEWES ROAD NEAR THE VIADUCT - 4 TIL 6 ON THURSDAY - LET'S MAKE SOME NOISE!!!
The judge tried to silence this argument by a variety of means. Firstly, she said she had no authority to rule on issues of war crimes. The defence pointed out that the ICCA clearly states war crimes committed abroard are incorporated into English Law. Then the judge simply stated "I don't know if I'm prepared to hear this argument, I don't see its relevance". The defence pointed out the lawfulness or otherwise of EDO's business was central to the charge. Then, the judge said that any how, she'd seen no evidence of war crimes, so the matter was moot. This was a bit ridiculous, as every time the defence tried to present evidence of war crimes the judge intervened to prevent it.
The defence said they could present a video of one incident in which a US F-16 bombs a crowd of civilians in Fallujah. The judge said she couldn't let it be shown because no evidence of war crimes had been presented (because the judge wouldn't let it be). The judge then proceeded with some wonderful circular logic that she couldn't allow evidence of war crimes to be presented as it hadn't been presented already, because she wouldn't let it. With that, the court adjourned for the judge to go away and make up an excuse (sorry, adjudicate). After a long break the judge returned and said she couldn't think of an excuse (sorry, hadn't made a ruling) and simply changed the subject!
The entire prosecution evidence is: 4 employees of EDO, who one month after the protest made statements claiming intimidating abuse ("shame on you!", "murderers") was shouted at them by unidentified persons on the roof. There were 30+ police officers within 100 metres, none of whom made any reference to shouting. Neither did the arresting officers make any mention of shouting. Furthermore, the police camera team didn't film any shouting, even though they were present when it allegedly took place. The prosecution picked out sections of the police video to show the judge, which showed protestors sunbathing and one eating a sanwich on the roof - scary, subersive criminal activities for sure. That's the prosecution case . . . we look forward to tomorrow's exciting instalment! That's all folks!
IF YOU'RE IN THE AREA PLEASE COME ALONG TO THE NOISE DEMO AT EDO'S FACTORY, HOME FARM ROAD, JUST OFF LEWES ROAD NEAR THE VIADUCT - 4 TIL 6 ON THURSDAY - LET'S MAKE SOME NOISE!!!
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Comedy moments . . .
12.01.2005 22:54
He at one point suggested the defendants must have been aware it was 'highly likely' they would fall through the roof, thus disrupting EDO - in legal terms he was saying they *intended* to fall through the roof to cause disruption!!!
He then tried to claim that the defendants contacted the media to disrupt EDO, either via a 'media scrum' outside the premises or by inciting persons unknown, via the BBC news, to at some unspecified date carry out unspecified disruption, thus the defendants intended disruption!
Seriously, the guy was grasping at straws . . . people in the public area were laughing out loud. If they're convicted, it will be complete bullshit - see you at the noise demo on Thursday!
Brighton Bod
Verdict Adjourned . . .
14.01.2005 17:15
Brightonian
Later that evening...
16.01.2005 19:51
Edophobe
Shouting
03.02.2005 08:09
As workers arrived they found the roadblock in their path and were given leaflets explaining what must have seemed an interesting intervention in their mundane trudge to work. All but suited senior management types turned around and had the day off; the suits parked nearby and walked the last stretch to calls of
‘are you proud of profiting from death?’
from the inhabitants of their newly autonomous roof.
It seems to me that the protestors are changing their storys quicker than the politicians.
bemused
Shouting?????
27.02.2005 03:39
As workers arrived they found the roadblock in their path and were given leaflets explaining what must have seemed an interesting intervention in their mundane trudge to work. All but suited senior management types turned around and had the day off; the suits parked nearby and walked the last stretch to calls of
‘are you proud of profiting from death?’
from the inhabitants of their newly autonomous roof."
What website are you refering to? This was certainly not on the website that got hacked (www.smashedo.bpec.org). Do you have the address for this report? Does this report exist in the wording that you stated above? I would like belive that good honest apologisers for the 'defence' industry wouldn't lower themselves do bending the truth, cause they wouldn't do that now would they?
EDO-Sceptic
Shouting
01.03.2005 23:01
Here is the link to the article.
It is in the fourth paragraph down.
Oh yes I do accept your apology
Bemused
anyone can post on indymedia
11.03.2005 12:16
dave jones