|
THIS IS LOCAL LONDON
Parliament protestor wins round 11
By
Martina Smit
|
 |
This time, police had claimed they feared terrorists could plant bombs among his placards.
On 23 May last year, 78 officers swooped on Mr Haw in a dawn raid that cost £27,000. They arrested him, along with three of his supporters, and seized most of the banners in his 40-metre display on Parliament Square.
The 57-year-old campaigner, from Redditch in Worcestershire, was charged with breaching the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Socpa) - which was adapted specifically to end Mr Haw's vigil.
The case was the 11th to be brought against the 57-year-old father of seven children since he started his vigil in 2001.
But today District Judge Quentin Purdy ruled Mr Haw did not violate rules imposed on him by police under the Act.
In court it was claimed that he had failed to supervise the site with "diligence and care" to keep anyone from planting an explosive device there.
However, the judge found the police conditions were invalid because they were unclear.
Also, the eventual raid was ordered by an officer of lower rank than the Met's commissioner.
"The commissioner cannot delegate his powers under Socpa as he purported to do," Judge Purdey said at the City of Westminster magistrates' court.
"Additionally I find the conditions drafted as they are lack clarity and are not workable in their current form."
He added: "Therefore I uphold the submission of no case to answer and dismiss this summons."
|
THE GUARDIAN
Rights groups hail activist victory
Press Association
|
 |
Civil rights groups have welcomed a ruling that anti-war protester Brian Haw has the right to continue his epic protest outside the Houses of Parliament.
Mr Haw, 57, who has staged a "Peace Protest" in Parliament Square since June 2001, was charged with breaching conditions imposed under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Socpa).
Applause broke out at London's City of Westminster magistrates' court as District Judge Quentin Purdy threw out the case against Mr Haw.
In fact the conditions on his protest were invalid because they lacked clarity and should have been imposed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner rather than a lower ranking officer, Mr Purdy ruled.
After the hearing Mr Haw's solicitor Mike Schwarz said: "District Judge Purdy dismissed the case against Mr Haw on the basis that the conditions were unlawful because they lacked clarity, and were not imposed by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
"Despite numerous prosecutions Brian Haw has never been convicted of any offence arising from his protest at Parliament Square.
"Today's judgment shows once again that the police have failed to observe basic procedures and human rights in their haste and anxiety to suppress his and others' protests around Parliament."
Doug Jewell, the campaign co-ordinator of the human rights group Liberty, added: "The sheer effort that the Government has put into trying to silence the protest of one man is breathtaking.
"If Government officials truly want to champion values such as freedom of speech, Mr Haw's demonstration should be considered a good example rather than an eyesore."
Mr Purdy had pointed to the "absurdity" of the some of the conditions imposed on Mr Haw since May 8 saying they were unworkable
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6363493,00.html
Haw wins legal battle against police
The Daily Telegraph
By
Matthew Moore
Brian Haw, the anti-war protester who has maintained six-year peace vigil in Parliament Square, has won the right to continue with his demonstration.
A judge today ruled that Mr Haw, 57, had not breached legal conditions imposed on his makeshift camp, and accused the Metropolitan Police Commissioner of acting outside the law in his efforts to control the protest.
District Judge Quentin Purdy said that the conditions the police imposed on Mr Haw under the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) "lacked clarity", and that they were invalid anyway because they were invoked by a junior officer.
Dismissing the police's case at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, Mr Purdy said: "I find the Commissioner cannot delegate his powers under SOCPA as he purported to do.
"Additionally I find the conditions drafted as they are lack clarity and are not workable in their current form."
At an earlier hearing the police had argued that Mr Haw's protest - which has become a well-known London landmark - posed a security threat as terrorists could hide bombs under his banners and flags.
The SOCPA conditions had required that he monitor his demonstration with "diligence and care", and that his placards must be no larger than three metres in height by three metres in width and one metre in depth.
They were imposed as part as a Government drive to keep protests away from the Houses of Parliament.
Mr Haw, a former carpenter from Worcestershire, has maintained his often noisy vigil since June 2001. At first he was protesting against Iraq sanctions, but then turned his attention to the US-led Iraq war.
Last May a team of 78 police officers staged a night-time raid on his makeshift camp, reducing the pavement space taken up by the demonstration to a 10ft "cube", in line with the SOCPA conditions. The operation was criticised as "overkill" by liberty campaigners.
After the verdict today, Mr Haw said that he hoped the banners the police had seized would now be returned to him.
"We won as we should have done because it was wrong and the police were wrong," he said.
"I am a peaceful person. These conditions were absolutely incredible - just ridiculous."