State Fails to Justify Monitoring of Political Meetings
Hodge Jones & Allen successfully represents three
charged
23rd July 2010
Three defendants were today cleared of
criminal offences when they took action to prevent the Metropolitan
Police taking photos of those attending a political meeting at a
community centre in South London.
At Inner London Crown Court, Jeff Parks,
Barney Laurance, Alex Clay were all cleared of offences of
obstructing police officers or police photographers.
The charges related to an incident on 15 June
2008, where up to a dozen police officers were outside the Pullen
Community Centre in South London, monitoring who was going in. The
meeting had been called to discuss a demonstration about the
government's immigration policies. The police took photographs of
everyone entering the meeting with no explanation of why they were
there or how their photos would be used. This was the second
occasion that this had happened in two weeks.
The three defendants objected to this gross
invasion of privacy and put a banner up to stop the police from
taking photos. All three were arrested and charged.
During the course of the hearings at Inner
London Crown Court, the defendants alleged that the police were
monitoring activists as a matter of course and putting them onto a
database in Scotland Yard.
At the trial that concluded today, the
Prosecution accepted that the Police had infringed on the
defendants' article 8 rights (right to privacy) but failed to call
any evidence to justify their actions. All the defendants were
acquitted as a result.
Raj
Chada, a partner at Hodge Jones & Allen LLP and the defence
lawyer for all three said "There is serious concern about the way
that the police are photographing and monitoring activists – They
refused to bring evidence to court that could be evaluated
and tested. It is clear that these monitoring units are out
of control and require abolition or at least regulation"
Tom Wainwright, counsel for Barney
Laurance argued in closing that the Metropolitan police were
asking the court to equate demonstration with violence. He stated
that "The right to protest is a freedom to be cherished and
protected, not an aberration to be monitored and controlled"
Jeff Parks said “I'm delighted with the
result, and not surprised that no police surveillance officer was
willing to give evidence and have to explain the real purpose of
their operations under oath.”
Val Swain on behalf of FITWATCH said “It’s great that a Crown
court has finally recognised that this type of police surveillance
tactic is potentially unlawful. It was hugely intimidating for the
people who turned up to a meeting, only to find uniformed police
officers were there to photograph and film them, treating them as
criminals.
If this was a mainstream political party, this
would never have been permitted, yet smaller grassroots political
groups are forced to accept this type of hugely intrusive
surveillance."
The three Fitwatch supporters who challenged
this surveillance acted highly courageously, and they deserve a
great deal of respect for what they did."
For further information, please contact
Raj Chada, Hodge Jones Allen Solicitors.