Raytheon trial

by BristleKRS Thu Apr 16, 2009 08:22

Just to clarify, I think that it was Sergeant Goddard himself who took the decision not to search Mr Smith for the D-lock key, on the grounds that he was "wearing several layers of clothing" and that to try and find a small object like a key would prove a fruitless task (despite Mr Smith being handcuffed and restrained by several officers for the entire extraction process). There was no evidence offered that any officers, either those in the patrol car who had initially attended, nor the attending Support Group (A&S Police Support Unit - analogous to the TSG in the Met), nor PS Goddard's unit, made any attempt to search Mr Smith for the key before cutting him out of the D-lock, be it for a key or any other item.

PS Goddard identified himself as a Bronze (operational) Commander, with Chief Inspector Warren as his Silver (tactical) Commander. CI Warren had taken the command decision to have Mr Smith removed and arrested whilst at Avon & Somerset police HQ in Portishead, from where Sergeant Goddard then led his 'Demonstrator Removal Team' out to the scene at Bristol Business Park.

The 'Demonstrator Removal Team' seemed to be described by Sergeant Goddard as a specialist unit operating out of the Operations Department of Avon & Somerset Constabulary HQ at Portishead. Sergeant Goddard described a four man team being dispatched for the Raytheon D-locking incident - himself (Bronze Commander), PC Waltho (cutting specialist); PC Johnstone (tactical medic); and PC Macready ('EG' or evidence gathering, aka videographer). It was not clear whether there were other officers dispatched alongside those four named officers.

The removal process involved PS Goddard making an initial operational assessment of the location and the situation, then speaking to Mr Smith to make a health & safety assessment with regards to any removal process. However, it was clear from his testimony that the decision had already been made (by Silver Commander CI Warren) to remove and arrest Mr Smith, and that that removal would involve cutting Mr Smith out (hence the wait for PS Goddard's specialist team all the way from Portishead, along with hydraulic rebar cutters).

PS Goddard's testimony, coupled with the dialogue between officers at the scene captured on PC Macready's EG film, indicates that the incident was being treated as a rebar cutter training exercise by those present. An officer we might reasonably assume is PC Waltho is heard explaining the process to another officer, and then appearing to direct that officer to make the actual cuts. PS Goddard's testimony indicated that one member of the Support Group in attendance had some basic cutting experience, and was brought into the extraction process.

Mr Smith was handcuffed with his hands behind his back at all times during the extraction. At least five officers appeared to be restraining him at all times - one per limb plus head. Following the D-lock being cut, Mr Smith was further restrained with two straps around his legs and a third around his torso. He was carried bodily into a police van in this manner, despite giving no signs of struggle which the five officers who had restrained him throughout the cutting could not reasonably have dealt with without the restraint straps.

Some further notes:

The district judge noted that to be found guilty of aggravated trespass, the defendant must be shown to have trespassed in a manner which 'disrupted, obstructed or intimidated, or some combination of all three in aggregate'. He dismissed the first charge (for the rooftop protest) on the grounds that being on the roof in no way prevented the owners of the building, nor their tenants, nor any workers or others with lawful business there, from going about their business there, whilst acknowledging that a trespass had taken place.

He set aside all evidence presented of any intimidation, because all suggestion of this was hearsay, presented at second or third remove by police witnesses or the building managers, and no witnesses were brought in to claim that they had personally felt intimidated.

Work continued in all of the units in the building throughout the protest, though the building manager claimed that one Raytheon worker due to work there had decided to work from home during the protest. Because no direct evidence was offered from any tenants of the building, including Raytheon, the judge made a point of not presuming to attribute any such change in the work pattern of Raytheon to the protest without first-hand sworn oral testimony rather than the hearsay evidence of the building manager.

The judge accepted that the protest was essentially spontaneous, that its principal aim was to garner public or media attention (and a press clipping from the Western Daily Press covering the protest was offered in evidence to demonstrate that as a publicity stunt it had achieved some success), and that there was no intention to disrupt, obstruct or intimidate, nor evidence that disruption, obstruction or intimidation had occurred to the level demonstrable in the high standards of proof under criminal law.

With regards to the D-lock protest, the district judge found that a trespass had again taken place, but also that it had obstructed and disrupted. Because the building was a serviced office space, he considered that preventing the regular operation of the reception area directly behind the main doors to which Mr Smith was D-locked constituted a clear disruption to the lawful business of the owners, POH.

In addition, whilst acknowledging that tenants, workers and others with lawful business there could continue to enter and exit via the emergency exits (and did so), that they were essentially being obstructed and disrupted nonetheless.

The judge accepted that there was no intimidation, and made the general point that across the two protests Mr Smith had generally not directed abusive language at individuals (hearing a judge illustrate the difference between the use of expletives as intensifiers and insults is most entertaining). He accepted that Mr Smith may have appeared to direct expletives at the police officers cutting him from the D-lock, but that under the circumstances - that is, being restrained, having his thumb bent back, and generally being in pain - this was understandable and/or reasonable and that it could by no means be construed by the officers restraining him (5+ as well as two cutters, one videoing,and countless others nearby) whilst he was handcuffed and D-locked as intimidating.

by emma Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:17

my thoughts are with the defendant.