R v Lindis Percy (appeal of convictions and sentences)

 

This was the third day of the appeal (see CAAB reports on website for DAY 1 and 2).

 

In the morning Lindis was cross examined by Heather Hummage (Crown Prosecutor).  Among many issues raised during the cross examination was the issue of the pay and control by the US Visiting Forces of the Ministry of Defence Agency (MDPA).    This was to be found in a Memorandum of Understanding - an Agreement signed in 1989 between the US Third Air Force and the Ministry of Defence Police - who later became an Agency.  The Memorandum was later submitted as evidence.  

 

Lindis was closely questioned about the role of the traffic officer and the right of people to come out of the base unimpeded.  She had explained to the court yesterday that, having been acquitted by Harrogate Magistrates' Court in February 2004 using the case of Hirst and Agu v the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, she believed that her actions were legally justified.  She emphasised how important it was to be vigilant concerning the principle of protest as laid down in the Human Rights Act 1998.  She gave evidence for over an hour and a half.

 

The court then adjourned for a short time to hear another case.

 

We returned to court at 12.30 to hear Richard Wright (Barrister representing Lindis) summarise the Defence case.  He said that Lindis's actions were reasonable and that CAAB had always had the safety of all involved in the weekly Tuesday night demonstrations as a high priority.  Many requests had been made to officers and letters sent to David Long (Superintendent MDPA) by CAAB about the issue of lighting, warning lights, police in reflector jackets etc etc.  Richard Wright believed that probably 3 of the arrests were unlawful as the officers had not fulfilled their legal obligations of arrest procedures.  It was the duty of all of the officers concerned (particularly the traffic officer) to uphold the law and enable the protest.  Protest inevitably will be controversial and offensive to some.  Some people would inevitably be inconvenienced by the protest but that was the product of living in a democracy.  There was a balance to be struck between the right to protest and the rights of people to go about their lawful duty - namely that of people driving out of Menwith Hill unimpeded.  The case of Hirst and Agu gave Lindis the right to stop cars for a 'deminimus' obstruction.  The cars were only held up for a very short time (CCTV video evidence of about 8 seconds) before Lindis, holding the upside down US flag with a polite political message written on it, stepped to one side.  He invited the Judge and two Magistrates to find that Lindis's actions were not unreasonable, not unsafe and the demonstration ought to have been enabled by the MDPA.

 

The court adjourned just before 1.0 pm.  The Judge said that the court would not reconvene before 3.15 pm while they came to their verdict.

 

At 3.40 pm the verdict was read out by Scott Wolstenholme (Judge).  Lindis was found not guilty of 'obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty' on one of the charges (14 December 2004).  He dismissed the appeals in relation to the other convictions.   He said that Lindis did not have the right to stop moving cars and that the police had a duty to ensure road safety.  Because the case was 'difficult' the Judge and Magistrates' wanted to take time to set out their reasons why they had come to this decision.  They would do this at a later date;  where and when this would be heard was to be decided.

 

Heather Hummage then addressed the Judge and his colleagues on the question of sentences which were also being appealed by Lindis.   Roy Anderson (District Judge) had sentenced Lindis to be curfewed and electronically tagged in her home in Hull from 8 pm to 6 am for 8 weeks.  She had also been ordered to pay £1030 costs.  A pre-sentence report was also given to the Judge.

 

Richard Wright responded by saying (among other reasons) that there was a possibility that Lindis might lose her job as a health visitor should she be electronically tagged.  She had worked in the National Health Service for about 30 years.

 

The Judge and two Magistrates returned after reaching a verdict on the sentences.  A  long list of convictions against Lindis was read out.  The court heard that all her convictions arose out of peaceful political protest. 

 

The court decided that the order that Lindis was to be tagged and curfewed was 'disproportionate' and that she had a right to protest. (Had they not, Lindis would have been prevented to take part in the weekly Tuesday CAAB protest).  She was instead given a 'conditional discharge' for 12 months.  The tribunal reduced the costs ordered by Roy Anderson to £800 and imposed a further £800 on Lindis for the cost of this appeal. 

 

Richard Wright informed Scott Wolstenholme that the Defence would now be considering an appeal by way of 'case stated' to the High Court London.

 

Again thank you so much to Ffriends who supported Lindis in court and/or sent supportive messages.

 

Please note:  CAAB will be present next Tuesday evening for the regular weekly demonstration (6-8pm) outside the main entrance to NSA Menwith Hill.