Yesterday I went to Westminster magistrates court to watch the case management hearing for 13 protesters. One of them is someone close to me. They were among the 145 people originally arrested outside Fortnum & Mason in March, and they’ve become such a whittled down group because a first set of defendants have already had their hearing with a trial set for November, while the bulk of those who were arrested have had their cases dropped. The campaign to drop all the cases continues, but meanwhile here we are, in the battered reception area of the second floor of the uninspired court building: the water dispenser empty, a cashpoint saying “FINES PAYMENT” ready to swallow guilty cards, tiles missing from the ceiling.
Everyone was gathered by the door of Court 5, about to go into the courtroom, when another trial gazumped this one at the last moment and gave us another half hour to spend outside: the defendants with their solicitors in a closed room, the partners and parents (there were only a handful) banked on metal seats in the waiting area.
Soon, the clerks gathered everyone up again and the defendants went in. They had to sit scattered across different areas of the courtroom like playing pieces in a complicated boardgame. Five were behind a slatted glass screen, four on a bench at the back, one alone in a raised wooden box towards the front, another couple adrift on benches. One had entered his plea earlier that day so wasn’t there.
The judge, DJ Snow (I still can’t get over that name), entered: a lean man, with dark grey hair, glasses, and expressive eyebrows and mouth that were put to good use throughout the afternoon, as he grimaced, scowled and smiled in reaction to whatever was presented to him by the three solicitors on the central bench: Mike Schwarz of the firm Bindmans, and Raj Chada of Hodge Jones & Allen, each representing different defendants, and Robert Short of the CPS.
First the prosecution were asked to explain to the judge why they have dropped 119 cases, but are still prosecuting these. The CPS man spoke of “possession and use of materials enhancing the aggravation of the offence”. What materials were these, in plain English? “Banners, cordon tape, leaflets and signs,” he explained, seeming particularly concerned about leaflets “in bundles or piles”. He said that such items suggested their owners “came to the event with some idea or intention towards promoting their cause.”
The judge’s eyebrows and mouth drew an exasperated face, and he pointed out that it isn’t criminal to have leaflets in favour of a cause. “It’s not in itself criminal,” admitted the CPS. “It’s a measure of the filter the Crown have used to sift the defendants. They had the means to play a more significant role on the day.”
.
Read more…
