High Court Hearing on EDO's complicity in War Crimes - Demo 9.30am Nov 1st

Does this mean that the AGO will be open for cross-examination?

Do you know already if the AG's decision and decision making process can be challenged as part of the defence, or is it likely the AG's *cough* official decision will stand as the yardstick and the defence will fall apart?

Surely, any space to challenge the legality of the AG in any *serious* way (warrants to produce documents, affadavits, dis/authentication of leaked documents etc.) would be "dangerously" close to allowing a public inquiry into the AG's decision and I'm sure Downing Street will do all it can to prevent that.

If the defence proved illegality, then the police would be obliged to investigate, no?

At any rate, best of luck! We can but hope.

The original post is counting chickens before quite hatched.

The nov 1st trial will deal with the following issues;(these were drafted by the AGs barrister) to 'help the court'.


(1) The following issues shall be tried as preliminary points of law:-

(a) Are matters of United Kingdom (UK) foreign policy and the deployment of the UK’s Armed Forces in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative matters which are justicible in these proceedings.

(b) Does the Defendants’ composite Defence (“the Defence”) disclose the commission of any offences contrary to s. 51 International Criminal Court Act 2001 (“the Act”);

(c) Irrespective of the answers to question (b) above, does the Defence
disclose any conduct ancillary to an offence under s.51 above, which is
capable of constituting an offence contrary to s.52 of the Act;

(d) Irrespective of (a), (b) and (c) above, is there sufficient nexus or
connection between the admitted conduct of the Defendants and the
Defendants’ assertions that they are acting to prevent the commission of
crime(s) by the Claimants.

(e) On the facts set out in the Defence is the Defendants’ conduct capable of falling within the terms of S.1 (3) (a) and/or (c) of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, and does the commission of any alleged crime have to be immediate of imminent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So although evidence will be heard about the legility of the war and EDOs complicity in war crimes which is one of the defences the protesters are arguing, it will be for the judge to decide in the prelim trial if these arguments are allowable in the full trial starting on nov 21.

SMASH EDO

PRESS RELEASE

 http://www.smashedo.org.uk

Tuesday 24TH October 2005.
EMBARGO. For Immediate Release
CONTACT: Andrew Beckett or Sarah Johnson on
07875 708873
 smashedopress@yahoo.co.uk


HIGH COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER BRITISH COMPANY CAN BE
HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ AND PALESTINE.


In a three day High Court hearing (1st-3rd November)
as part of the ongoing injunction trial against
Brighton peace activists, the UK government will once
more face accusations that the Iraq war was illegal.
The Court will also decide whether weapons
manufacturers in the UK can be held responsible for
war crimes committed with the use of their
merchandise. The Attorney General’s office has
controversially intervened in proceedings to argue
that UK foreign policy is not subject to the rule of
law because of the special nature of the Royal
Prerogative.

In a previous hearing Judge Simons ordered that the
court decide
“Are matters of UK foreign policy and deployment of
the UK’s armed forces in the exercise of the Royal
Prerogative matters which are justicible".

The defendants are fighting an injunction from
Brighton arms manufacturer EDO MBM under the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 The injunction
seeks to restrict their right to free speech and
assembly. Injunctions under this act however do not
apply if the purpose of the defendants is to “prevent
or detect crime”

Evidence submitted to the court shows that EDO MBM
manufacture bomb release mechanisms and guidance
systems in use with UK, US and Israeli forces. Those
weapons were used (and are being used) in the illegal
invasion and occupation of Iraq and the Occupation of
Palestine.

The Court will be shown graphic evidence of the
aftermath of air-strikes, in the shape of photographs
and eyewitness statements of survivors.


THERE WILL BE A DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE ROYAL COURTS
OF JUSTICE ON TUESDAY 1st NOVEMBER AT 9.30 AM



==========================================
Notes for Journalists

Brighton&Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City.

The injunction referred to was served under the 1997
Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to
protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its
kind directed at activists outside of the animal
rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction
but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone
deemed to be a protestor.

Initially EDO/MBM requested a large “exclusion zone”
comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.
They and Sussex police also wanted to limit
demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less than
ten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refused
to impose these conditions at the initial hearing of
an interim injunction, which was put in place in the
period before the full trial to be heard at the High
court in London from November 21st.

In his summing up he said, “The right to freedom of
expression is jealously guarded in English law” and
consequently refused to impose the requested limits on
size, timing or noise made at demonstrations.

He also said that he doubted that protesters were
'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.

EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of
huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was
recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100
fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release
mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongst
others. They supply crucial components for Raytheon’s
Paveway IV guided bomb system, widely used in the
“Shock and Awe” campaign in Iraq.

EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against
Indymedia
over being named as “warmongers”.

Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental
in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997
from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a
corporate
charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. They
have pioneered to use of injunctions to create large
“exclusion zones”. They have secured numerous
injunctions against anti-vivisection and anti-GM
protestors.

Campaign against EDO MBM.

People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but
are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton
Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine
Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade
unionists, academics and students.
The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp.
It’s avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their
complicity in war crimes and to remove them from
Brighton.

Okay, am I getting this right? The AGO is arguing that HMGvt's actions can't be deemed illegal because of the notion of "sovereign immunity" in the concept of The Roayl Prerogative? I.e., that no matter what the Gvt does under a Royal Prerogative, it is immune from prosecution (in the UK, I take it)?

If that were to be upheld, then it would surely make a mockery of the ICC and Genava Convention. And doesn't that mean Saddam, Mugabe, Pinochet et al could defend himself with the same argument? would this set any new precedents?

Isn't that the kind of thing the ICC was supposed to preventing???

What are the legal ramifications if Royal Prerogative is used to obvioate international law? Can the decision be realistically challenged anywhere ouside the English system?


________

Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a type of immunity that, in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or government cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. In many cases, the government has waived this immunity to allow for suits; in some cases, an individual, such as an attorney general, may technically appear as defendant on the government's behalf.

______

International Criminal Court Act 2001
2001 Chapter 17 - continued

PART 5
OFFENCES UNDER DOMESTIC LAW

Introduction
50 Meaning of "genocide", "crime against humanity" and "war crime"

(1) In this Part-


"genocide" means an act of genocide as defined in article 6,

"crime against humanity" means a crime against humanity as defined in article 7, and

"war crime" means a war crime as defined in article 8.2.
(2) In interpreting and applying the provisions of those articles the court shall take into account-


(a) any relevant Elements of Crimes adopted in accordance with article 9, and

(b) until such time as Elements of Crimes are adopted under that article, any relevant Elements of Crimes contained in the report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court adopted on 30th June 2000.
(3) The Secretary of State shall set out in regulations the text of the Elements of Crimes referred to in subsection (2), as amended from time to time.

The regulations shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament after being made.
(4) The articles referred to in subsection (1) shall for the purposes of this Part be construed subject to and in accordance with any relevant reservation or declaration made by the United Kingdom when ratifying any treaty or agreement relevant to the interpretation of those articles.

Her Majesty may by Order in Council-

(a) certify that such a reservation or declaration has been made and the terms in which it was made;

(b) if any such reservation or declaration is withdrawn (in whole or part), certify that fact and revoke or amend any Order in Council containing the terms of that reservation or declaration.
(5) In interpreting and applying the provisions of the articles referred to in subsection (1) the court shall take into account any relevant judgment or decision of the ICC.

Account may also be taken of any other relevant international jurisprudence.
(6) The relevant provisions of the articles of the ICC Statute referred to this section are set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.

No account shall be taken for the purposes of this Part of any provision of those articles omitted from the text set out in that Schedule.

England and Wales
51 Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes

(1) It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.

(2) This section applies to acts committed-


(a) in England or Wales, or

(b) outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.
52 Conduct ancillary to genocide, etc. committed outside jurisdiction

(1) It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to engage in conduct ancillary to an act to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to an act that if committed in England or Wales would constitute-


(a) an offence under section 51 (genocide, crime against humanity or war crime), or

(b) an offence under this section,
but which, being committed (or intended to be committed) outside England and Wales, does not constitute such an offence.

(3) The reference in subsection (1) to conduct ancillary to such an act is to conduct that would constitute an ancillary offence in relation to that act if the act were committed in England or Wales.

(4) This section applies where the conduct in question consists of or includes an act committed-


(a) in England or Wales, or

(b) outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.