NO2ID

[/quote]

Certainly I'd agree with you there but never say never! Firstly there is a big difference between an individual and an organisation with approx 40 000 members. Strength in numbers has always been a useful strategy and not only do we have the numbers but the grey matter as well. That's what wins stuff, sometimes against all odds.

I think what we would most need at this point is some heavyweight legal help. Normally this comes at a high price but you know ID cards come at a much higher price. We are basically relying on the good will of anyone out there who feels strongly enough about this to lend a hand in one form or another. To solve a problem the more minds working on it the better and someone might just know something that can be done by virtue of their expertise. If they do then please get in touch with NO2ID.

I can vouch for the difference between average lawyers, the kind you might get on a legal aid scheme working for little money and a proper defence lawyer. Our family recently had experience of both kinds and the contrast could not have been greater. We won the case having gone through two appeals in the lower courts. We achieved what some could not believe, something that has actually changed the law itself as well. Not only that but the people we were battling against were far more corrupt than we get in the UK. Nothing beats knowing you subject and remember the opposition are used to having it easy, its best to let them keep thinking that while preparing a bombshell for them.

Police powers of arrest are, rightly, very wide. If you are suspected of what used to be called an "arrestable offence", then the grounds for such suspicion need not be especially strong (although there must still be grounds which can be shown to warrant the suspicion). For lesser offences, however, the grounds must generally be more substantial and, in most cases, there must be a demonstrable "necessity".

Civil actions for wrongful arrest HAVE succeeded where there has been a blatant lack of any grounds, but if you think about it logically, the police won't usually have any motive to make an arrest if they don't have a particular reason which would constitute such grounds.

The issue I have isn't so much that the police make arrests which are malicious and patently unlawful, so much as making arrests merely to satisfy either a procedural requirement (because the CPS and courts prefer to deal with people on bail rather than by summons) or because they will get no credit for the time they spend dealing with the case if they can't chalk up an arrest to add to their monthly tally. This causes officers to prefer arrest over other, less intrusive, methods of disposal.

Stu

It's difficult to comment without knowing the full details of the case but from what I gather there may be a civil case that can be put together. I suppose one wrong foot by any of the protestors at the time could entirely jeopardise it but I'm fairly confident this protest was done as professionally as possible. After all they were all being filmed and knew everything they did or said could have ended up on the Six 0 clock news. We also have video that we could use as evidence that it was an entirely peaceful event. The TV crew would be reliable witnesses and so on.

So it looks hopeful to me that something can be done but ultimately it is the decision of the people who got arrested on what they would like to do. In my opinion whatever they decide they can certainly be said to have already done a grand job and we already have much sympathy from the newspapers, e.g. that very nice Telegraph column the other day.

The police work for the State and not the people and obey the orders from the State and not the people.

All nine of us have now received initial legal advice. We remain confident in the strength of our defence. Unfortunately, the Law Society requires that we each have separate lawyers (in case of conflicts of interest - it makes sense, but is of no benefit to us here). That representation is being arranged. Those of us who will not qualify for legal aid (the majority) can each expect minimum legal fees of about £700-800 if the cases proceeds to full trial - money that cannot be recovered even after acquittal. Thank you to those who have sent cheques (£85 so far + £50 promised). It would certainly appear to be a benefit to have no income or savings if you want to protest against government policy. Nevertheless, we all remain committed to fighting through to the bitter end and clearing our names.

There may be grounds for various civil actions as a result of what happened last Monday, but that is not a priority for us at the moment. We will deal with the criminal charges against us first.

We can carry on talking to the media as usual - so no respite for the Home Office - but must all be careful not to say anything that would prejudice any defence, so will therefore refrain from public discussion of the particular events that took place during the protest.

Breach of the peace in Scotland can be dealt with under either summary or solemn procedures. We fully expect the former; solemn procedures are used for only the most serious cases. On the 24th July, we will finally see the detailed complaints against us and have the opportunity to tell the court that we are not guilty. Dates will then be set for the Intermediate Diet and the Trial Diet. At the Intermediate Diet, we will confirm our pleas. The prosecution and defence will produce information, such as witness lists and CCTV footage. We should not necessarily expect the same judge in each of the hearings. None of the accused is obliged to give evidence at trial, but anyone who chooses to do so then opens themselves up to cross-examination by other defendants and the prosecution.

BvL - I think Breach of the Peace is triable only summarily, so Crown Court (or whatever the equivalent is in Scotland) would not be an option.

Not at all familiar with 'alarm and distress/disturbance'. Geraint - Were these offered up as reasons for being charged with B of the P, or are they entirely separate offences under an Act of Parliament?

I have no wish to sound negative, but it should be borne in mind that causing a B of the P is not a difficult matter for the police to prove; for the simple reason it can be virtually anything that 'interrupts the peace and good order' of the 'normal state of society'.

If the cases proceed they may well present a good opportunity to gain publicity to highlight this Government's obsessive pursuit of its 'control freak' agenda, but the likely outcome of the cases themselves might be a 'bind over to be of good behaviour'.

However, you do have to 'accept to be bound over' and I have no idea how punitive they are in Scotland if you refuse.

Breach of the peace in Scotland can be dealt with under either summary or solemn procedures.


Those were the words used by the police officers when they charged me and told me what everyone else was being charged with, and were supposedly the grounds for charging with BoP. We will get the detailed complaints in a couple of weeks, which should make interesting reading. BoP may be wide ranging, but the large number of witnesses and the film recorded by the STV camera crew should make it very difficult for the prosecution to demonstrate that our behaviour was anything other than reasonable.

Geraint - I (like many others no doubt) will be following this with interest.

I hope all goes well.

Come on everyone, we've got to do better than this!

About a hundred quid raised so far, that’s pathetic!!!

It's time people put their money where their mouth is and coughed up to help!

We've got to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who put themselves out there on the line. We can all come to this forum and act tough, say we’ll never submit to ID cards, but who of us other than these 9 was out there making a stand? They weren’t doing anything wrong, all they did was to be present at a meeting. THAT IS HOW BAD THIS COUNTRY HAS BECOME!

Looks like we're going to need about £8,000 to help these ID Martyrs!

So let’s get organised and start a fund on this website for these people.

hear hear! lol

For facebook freaks like me, a new group has just been added to raise awareness and provide people with the opportunity to show support. The group also provides information on how to contribute to the defence fund. If you are on facebook you are more than welcome to join the group and INVITE ALL YOUR FRIENDS.

Many thanks

Charlie. 8 of 9

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18114904242

Yes and like unlawful arrest the officer does not need to see much to arrest someone, but it can't be for any reason, it has to be concrete and provable beyond reasonable doubt. This is why we need to look at case law and build the case around what the legal definition currently is. In any law it has to be defined so that the law-abiding citizen knows what they can and can't do prior to their actions, hence the ridged definitions that need to be in place. Often you find though that one part of the law contradicts another part. I had this regarding a tax disk. I appealed to the Crown Court and the look on the judge's face was a sight to see as he frantically flicked through his giant law book. In the end he admitted the contradiction and saved me a lot of money. I don't think this is particularly unusual either.

Yes, the lawyer my family last used who won in the top court in the country charged £160/hour. Mind you he was a genius and worth every penny, which of course we can now get back. Some lawyers just have that way about them that they will not be defeated and they have solutions rather than problems to offer you. A 'can-do' attitude.

If we had someone like that it would make the government look really bad and they would keep on loosing. So if anyone wants some real action then please send a cheque to NO2ID. This is serious; I mean what is essentially going on here is they are now thinking it is OK to arrest people just because they were in a political protest. They can't do that; it's against their fundamental legal rights.

Can we have a guesstimate of the total legal bill and do a Pledge? Seems appropriate.

It is unfortunate that no Barrister has yet come forward to offer his/her services on a Pro Bono basis. I feel this refelects badly on the profession. Maybe one should approach Tooks Chambers and ask if Michael manfield would be willing to take on this case? And yes, this is a serious suggestion.

If no one from Glasgow ID is willing to approach them directly, I would be. I would however need to consult with the relevant persons from the group and fully acquaint myself with the facts of this matter before I could proceed.

A couple of thoughts on this. First there are one or two people out there with a lot of money who hate the government and want to see it out of office as soon as possible, one that comes to mind is Stewart Wheeler who donated £5million to the Tories a while back. He likes a bit of litigation and might be able to offer some assistance. The second thought is to get the public involved and get a web based donation thingy going that can be posted around the place, on people's websites and blogs and that sort of thing.

I was wondering about a slightly novel idea regarding civil actions that might just work and its based on the idea that you can get your legal costs back if you win. Now since we have firms like Paypal and electronic web based transactions it might be possible to do the following. People don't give us money but lend it to us on the understanding that if the case is won they get it back. They could opt whether they want to do it this way or make a donation of all or some of it if the case is won. It's a bit like gambling, you place your money on a legal case and if it is won you get the money back and the satisfaction of doing something good without it costing anything. You could call it something catchy like 'A punt for freedom'.

Baron von Lotsov, I like your fundraising ideas. Just be careful with the Tory donor though. It's important that No2ID remains unaffiliated with any political party. It's not to say you can't pursue this. It must be made clear that any donations from such a donor should have no risk of turning into a political drama. Check out http://www.justgiving.com/ for a means to raise funds.

I will pledge to contribute £100 if the charges are not dropped.

In fact, even if the charges are dropped, it looks like there might be civil action anyway, judging by the talk on this thread. I think it is really important that activists take a stand when they face injustice. The police here clearly need to be taught a lesson.

I want to give everyone a quick tip off.
I have learned that following the recent arrests of protesters in Edinburgh besides NO2ID, a certain Inspector is drawing up guidelines on how protests should be policed. I will be in contact with Inspector Boyd, at Gayfield Square Police Station [moderation: direct telephone number removed] concerning other protests. As a 'stakeholder' in protests, I'm sure No2ID can make a positive contribution on how police should use their powers. However, because the cases haven't gone to court yet, they might not think it appropriate to comment on them.

Inspector Boyd is due to give me a draft guideline on policing protests, and I am expected to comment on it. I will keep you posted on this topic.

Tommy, I think it is very likely that we shall be giving some feedback to Lothian and Borders police - but that will have to wait until we are acquitted or the charges are dropped. However, if you are in touch with the inspector, I would be happy to receive the draft guidelines, to comment on them when appropriate.

I will not yet make any further comment about police actions at the protest or the matter of detention. However, a couple of general points that would be worth considering:

All officers should be made aware that there is no legal requirement for protesters to give prior notification to, or request authorisation from, any authorities. One of the officers (mask-ripper) who charged me seemed unclear on this, claiming that we should have informed the council beforehand, who would have informed the police, who would have prevented us from entering the hotel - in other words, we should have informed the police so that they could prevent us from conducting a peaceful protest!

If the police do wish protesters to give them the courtesy of advance notification, then they must adopt a position of strict impartiality and neutrality. I would have been happy to have told Edinburgh police what we were planning, if it had not been for the certain fact that they would have informed both the Home Office and the Hotel. If they promise just to have a couple of police in attendance, and not to interfere with protests unless the law is being broken, then they may find themselves far more welcome. But they must understand that they also serve protesters, not just those who are being protested against.

Get a link on the site so that the idle and disorganised, who have no idea where their cheque books are, like me,can donate directly to the legal costs fund by Paypal.

Glasgow NO2ID Paypal or, preferably, cheques payable to "Glasgow NO2ID" to 3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow G20 7JB.

Thanks folks! We're up to 305 pounds so far.

For those of us who don't want to leave a data trail, with cheques and paypal, is there an account number and sort code we can pay cash into over the counter?

Sorry, no. Our treasurer felt that it would be unwise to give out that information. But I'm happy to accept postal orders

And even if you can't be bothered with that you can slip a few notes into an envelope and post it to NO2ID. I know people sometimes say that is not a good idea, but for small amounts it would be OK.

Indeed this is a good trial run to get the defence system up and running properly because when ID cards are made compulsory we are going to have a lot more of this sort of thing to sort out. It's a good time to look around at who is available to do the legal work. Ideally we need a specialist in matters to do with unlawful arrest / breach of the peace etc who has maybe worked for protest groups before. You see law is a complex thing and most lawyers except your high street 'jack of all trades' tend to specialise in a particular branch. The more cases they take on revolving around the same kind of problems the better practiced they become and ultimately the better value for money.

One thing I'm a little concerned with though is the idea there are nine separate lawyers involved for each person. This seems an awful waste due to duplication of work. Surely it would be better to have one top lawyer directing the entire case and figuring out strategy while their individual ones did the more mundane stuff. The problem otherwise is it is almost like they have a divide and rule arrangement going on. Of course if the defendants were in dispute with one another (as in 'he hit the policeman, I was just watching/no it was him...') then I could understand it but it seems everyone is being accused of exactly the same thing. So in this case can someone check to see if legal representation can be amalgamated?

I thought that NO2ID had already received thousands in their pledge bank - so why not dip into that?

Might be an idea to wrap them in something conducting, like one of those little bags that computer chips come in. I think they have automated money detectors in the postal system that look for the aluminium strip or something.