By Nadine El Elenany

33 years ago, anti-fascist activist and teacher Blair Peach was killed by the police. Peach died after being struck on the head by a Met police officer during a demo against the National Front, the precursor to the BNP, in Southall, west London. Despite a Met report confirming that Peach was almost certainly killed by an officer from its elite riot squad using an unauthorised weapon, and that officers had lied about their whereabouts on the day and harboured illegal weapons, no police officer was ever prosecuted.

Little has changed since the day Peach died at the hands of police while exercising his right to protest. Cases alleging police misconduct show no sign of abating. Indeed, the Met police are currently experiencing a gathering crisis of legitimacy on multiple fronts: racism, corruption and oppressive public order policing.

The policing of protest is in a state of deep crisis, from the death of a bystander at the G20 protests in 2009 and the injuries sustained by students resisting the rise in tuition fees at a series of demos in 2010, to the use of undercover agents and the numerous individuals criminalised for participating in public protest. Last month we learned of three more protesters (co-defendants in the case of Alfie Meadows) cleared of charges of violent disorder relating to the student protest of 9 December 2010, a verdict that is not only a victory for the acquitted protesters, but for all those fighting to defend the right to protest at a time of unprecedented cuts to education and the public sector.

The police’s record at public order events is in tatters, and it is not helped one iota by their attempt to lay charges of violent disorder on those exercising their right to protest.

All this has occurred on the watch of Silver Commander Mick Johnson, whose CV boasts a series of major public order events he has overseen at various levels, including the Poll Tax riots in 1990, the May Day protest of 2001 during which protesters were kettled in Oxford Circus, demos outside the Israeli embassy, the G20 protest and the student demos of 2010, where protesters were charged with horses, beaten with batons and kettled in below-freezing temperatures for hours in Parliament Square and on Westminster Bridge. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has added its voice, expressing concern about the police’s use of batons and kettling at the student demos.

Johnson has been tasked with determining police tactics at the Olympics, which are to entail a 64 day long police operation. In view of his track record, we can expect more of the same in the way of over and aggressive policing this summer.

The Met is not however facing a single-issue crisis. Last week we learned that the Home Secretary, Teresa May, is considering launching a second inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence following allegations that police corruption may have been the reason why the racist gang which carried out the murder evaded justice for so long.

While a second inquiry is long overdue, the lessons of the first inquiry – the Macpherson report that identified a deep-rooted institutional racism in the Met police – have yet to be learned. The recent spate of allegations of racist abuse against Met officers suggests the response to Macpherson has been woefully inadequate.

The situation was not helped by an unprecedented move in 2010, in which the police charged anti-racist demonstrators with conspiracy to incite violent disorder at an anti-EDL demo in Bolton. Even though the police dropped the charges, the overzealous charging for offences committed at public protests threatens the right to voice dissent and to mobilise against racism.

This is all the more poignant given that the anniversary of Peach’s death came on the day France’s equivalent of the National Front, the target of Peach’s protest all those years ago, has made record gains in the first round of the presidential elections. It is in part thanks to anti-racist activists like Blair Peach and Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence, that far-right parties in the UK do not enjoy such electoral success.

If the police continue to act with impunity, their crisis of legitimacy will deepen. The police must be held accountable for their actions, whether these be racist behaviour, corruption or repressive public order policing.

Original source: http://nadineelenany.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/little-has-changed-since-the-death-of-blair-peach/

Defend the Right to Protest Campaign’s statement on the acquittals of brothers, Andrew and Christopher Hilliard.

Student protesters Andrew Hilliard (18) and Christopher Hilliard (23) have today been acquitted, after being charged with violent disorder from 9th December 2010. The jury reached the unanimous verdict within two hours after a trial of two weeks. This brings the total to 11 cases resulting in acquittals for violent disorder from 9th December 2010, with only one case resulting in a guilty verdict. This highlights the reluctance of juries to find violence in the actions of student protesters on the demonstration, notably when the defence have contextualised the demonstration as one which was heavily policed and resulted in many more student protesters being injured than police (notably Alfie Meadows’ extradural brain haemorrhage and skull fracture ). Such injuries were largely a result of police tactics on the day – the use of horse charges, baton strikes and containment which resulted in crushes at potential exit points for protesters.

By Rachel Harger

Violent disorder is one of five public order offences available to the police, all five have almost identical definitions yet have much wider, differing punitive consequences, by charging protesters like Alfie Meadows with the second most serious offence – violent disorder, the police are inviting disproportionate custodial sentences if the jury returns a guilty verdict. The frequent and widespread use of violent disorder against student protesters also helps to paint a picture of student demonstrations being, quite literally, a mass of violence. It helps to justify not just police tactics and strategy on the day – the use of kettling, horse charges, any other use of force-but ultimately justifies the horrific process of criminalising those who protest, from the media witch hunt of protesters (many people having their photos and names published in the aftermath of protests), to the ordeal of being arrested and tried. As well as any subsequent consequences of conviction – imprisonment, curfews, fines and in every case of conviction- the consequences of a criminal record will affect individuals’ job and university opportunities.

It is in this context we should look at Wednesday’s verdicts in the trial of Alfie Meadows and others. The most important thing to acknowledge is that no-one was found guilty of violent disorder, despite the repetitive efforts of the prosecution barrister, in a wider context of media narratives and politicians who have vilified student demonstrations and individual protesters as a violent minority. On Wednesday, three people were acquitted of violent disorder and one of those three defendants also acquitted of arson. One person has been found guilty of arson, after admitting he was part of a group of people to burn a bench to keep warm in sub zero temperatures, only wearing a t shirt. These verdicts do nothing to boost the confidence of those who have been trying to depict student protesters as violent.

In fact when looking solely at 9th December 2010 student demonstration, Legal Defence Monitoring Group (before considering Wednesday’s verdict) have recorded 15 cases of Violent Disorder, 3 cases were dropped, 7 people who pled not guilty which led to trials has subsequently led to only 1 guilty verdict.
Therefore, in consideration of Wednesday and the verdicts that could be reached, that number has now boosted to 10 trials for violent disorder from 9th December being concluded with ‘not guilty verdicts’. There may very well be other cases of violent disorder not recorded from 9th December but out of these which have, it certainly tells us something of the reluctance of jurors, ordinary members of the public, to convict protesters of violent disorder.

It would seem that prosecuting barristers are having a hard time convincing juries of a frequently dogmatic account of 9th December 2010. One which simply paints student protesters as violent and police officers on the day as thoroughly restrained, and part of a flawless policing operation in which nothing could have or did go wrong. Indeed, it was in Alfie Meadows’ case that the prosecution called Silver Command Officer Mick Johnson to give evidence, as their lead witness. Johnson ordered police tactics and oversaw the police strategy on 9th December 2010. He and the court were shown a montage of footage by Alfie Meadows defence barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, which clearly showed many demonstrators experience of the police on 9th December 2010. Within this footage we saw the charges on horseback by police, which resulted in chants of, “shame on you, shame on you”. Johnson disregarded the horseback charge as a passive advance through the crowd despite what we could all see on the television screen, and what many in the public gallery could remember from being there on the day. I remembered the account of a student from Manchester University, who had a broken collarbone as a result of the horseback charge, and her bag being found splattered with the blood of other people; I wondered what she would have made of Johnson’s explanation. Johnson and the court were also shown harrowing scenes from Westminster bridge during the tight kettle, the court could hear the screams of terrified protesters, we heard more than once someone cry, “you’re going to kill somebody.” Yet Johnson insisted there was room and that any squash was solely the result of protesters themselves pushing each other, once again refusing to accept any criticisms or questioning of police tactics and strategy. Johnson, made further blunders, exposing the arrogance and unaccountability of the police as he continuously shifted responsibility from himself onto anonymous bronze officers or other bodies within the police. Johnson had started giving evidence by saying the buck stopped with him regarding tactics and strategy of the police on 9th December 2010 but what was clear, by the end of him giving evidence, was that the buck might have stopped with him but so did his responsibility once the day was over.  When Johnson (who also oversaw the G20 protests) was questioned about the policing of protest more generally. He claimed nothing “necessarily” went “wrong” on the G20 protests. Despite the death of bystander who was hit with a police baton while trapped in a police kettle. Yet, it is Mick Johnson who will be deciding police tactics during London 2012 Olympics.

It is an incredibly frustrating and distressing situation for Alfie and his loved ones to have heard the [lack of a] verdict on Wednesday, which may lead to a re-trial. A re-trial would not be a possibility until at least October or November this year, meaning Alfie’s life plans and daily life being affected for 7 more months. This is illustrative of the wait many defendants also have to go through before they can clear their names, Alfie already had to wait over a year to be tried after being initially charged in March 2011. The Hilliard brothers – Andrew and Christopher, arrested on 9th December 2010, will be tried 23rd April 2012, almost a year and a half after the event. The kind of practical and psychological affect this must have on defendants, who are fighting to clear their names, should also be accounted for. As a mother of a defendant said to me recently, “they asked what time the kettle ended, I feel like I am still in that kettle until the trial is over.” However, as frustrating as the lack of a verdict may be, it is not a guilty one. This is within a trial where defendants were acquitted, for violent disorder and therefore significant defeats for those who are trying to criminalise Alfie.

Defend the Right to Protest will continue to stand with Alfie Meadows and all those who have been criminalised as a result of exercising their right to protest. It is repeatedly those who demonstrate who juries are invited to scrutinize, not the police tactics and strategy on 9th December. The jury were not invited by the court to pore over and examine the kettling, horse charges, indiscriminate use of police batons and subsequent injuries. Essentially, it is not the police on trial for their actions on 9th December 2010. Juries are constrained by the law and court system to analytically look at defendants’ actions. They are expected to politically and emotively detach, even in the face of clearly political charges, from political events. How possible the latter has been for juries is perhaps reflected in the recent succession of not guilty verdicts from 9th December.

We may not have had the opportunity to declare victory on the steps of Kingston Crown Court on Wednesday and it may be that that this will be a longer battle than we may have hoped for, but what is certain is that we are no less determined or confident that Alfie will finally win justice. Until then we must all stand with him, now more than ever, we are all Alfie Meadows.

Read Defend the Right to Protest’s statement (and others) in response to the verdicts in the trial of Alfie Meadows and Others and please sign it here.

Jurors this week failed to reach a verdict in the case of Alfie Meadows, who was charged with violent disorder after the student demonstration on 9 Dec 2010. Alfie suffered a extradural brain haemorrhage and skull fracture after he was struck on the head with a police baton. While Alfie may now face a retrial in the autumn, three of his co-defendants were cleared of violent disorder. These acquittals are not only a victory for those directly concerned but for all those campaigning against the criminalisation of protest at a time of unprecedented cuts to education and the public sector.

None of the protester defendants, Alfie included, would have been in the dock were it not for government’s education cuts policy which means a generation of young people are now deprived of access to education.

The outcome of the trial means that Alfie’s struggle for justice is not over. But the trial itself has lifted the lid on the use of violent police tactics on protests, and the criminalisation of protesters, which need to be challenged.

Footage shown at the trial revealed police indiscriminately attacking protesters throughout the day. Demonstrators were charged by mounted police on the pretext that there was “sustained and ferocious violence” when the police log recorded an officer noting only that the cordon was under “slight pressure”. Demonstrators were later crushed so tightly into a police kettle on Westminster Bridge that they cried out to police “someone is going to get killed”. A doctor described helping out at a makeshift first aid point in Parliament Square to treat protesters injured by police batons.

Yet not a single police officer has been disciplined or prosecuted following these demonstrations.

Indeed Silver commander Mick Johnson, who was in charge of the police operation on 9 December, was unable to specify any action taken relating to a police log which stated that an injured protester was “likely to die”. He further claimed not to have heard of Jody McIntyre, who was pulled out of his wheelchair using force described by the IPCC as “excessive”. When questioned about the policing of protest more generally, Johnson claimed that nothing “necessarily” went “wrong” on the G20 protests – despite the death of bystander who was hit with a baton while trapped in a police kettle. Johnson is now in charge of policing the Olympics.

The lack of police accountability relating to these events stands in stark contrast to the punitive treatment of protesters.

In this context we:

• Continue to support Alfie Meadows in his fight for justice.
• Support all those other protesters who have been arrested, bailed, charged or imprisoned and are fighting to clear their names.
• Call for an end to kettling and use of all other crowd control tactics that intimidate and threaten the right to protest.
• Stand in solidarity with protesters and others who have been victims of police violence and are campaigning for justice.

SIGN THE STATEMENT ONLINE.

Statements of Support

“Unite stands proudly shoulder to shoulder with Alfie Meadows in his struggle for justice as we do all others engaged in direct actions to defend the social fabric of our society, groups such as, UKUncut and the occupy movement. This is a vicious government engaged in an unprecedented attack on our young and old alike, waging class war on the jobless, homeless and vulnerable in their attempt to defend the interests of a self-appointed elite of bankers, tax avoiders and multi-millionaires. Just as in today’s Arab spring and the bringing down of the Berlin Wall before it, when ordinary people stand up anything is possible. Solidarity, justice, dignity and respect are the values of trade unionism. They are the values of a decent society and the right to protest is at the heart of them all. In solidarity Alfie.” – LEN McCLUSKEY, UNITE General Secretary

“NUS believes that the fact Alfie Meadows will face a retrial for violent disorder is clearly an unjust decision. Alfie’s treatment at the hands of the police was disgraceful, not only did he receive life threatening injuries but now has to put his life on hold for another year. Of course we extremely pleased that 3 of the 5 other protestors on trial with Alfie were acquitted, a major victory in defending our right to protest. However we also believe that this shows justice has still not been served for Alfie and that there is still a long way to go before we see protest protected rather than admonished by the law. We believe the trial has shown the startling lack of police accountability and that attempts to criminalise protest are still inherent in the justice system. We fully support the campaign to gain justice for Alfie Meadows and to end kettling and believe we cannot see violent policing go unpunished any longer.” LIAM BURNS, NUS President

“The decisions of the court this week call into serious question the decision to prosecute these young people. For Alfie Meadows, surely, this young man who nearly lost his life has suffered enough, and all charges should be dropped. Evidence in court exposing the levels of police violence clearly demonstrate the need for an independent public enquiry.” JOHN MCDONNELL, MP

“The trial and the events that led up to it expose the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of the debate around our right to protest. Similar scenes to those witnessed in and around Parliament Square have been condemned by this Government when they occurred in the Middle East, but they stand condemned by their own silence when these events happen on their own doorstep. The police tactics – designed to deter legitimate protest – are simply another strand in the ongoing attack on our freedoms being carried out by the rich elite. We need to continue the campaign to defend our right to protest and to demand justice for those who exercise this right – beginning with Alfie Meadows” TONY KEARNS CWU Deputy General Secretary

“The trial of Alfie Meadows has once again exposed the corruption, brutality and lack of accountability of the Metropolitan Police. A jury of ordinary people were unwilling to believe the version of events that the police put forward in the trial. It is now time for the police officers involved in the attack on Alfie, as well as the other officers using violence against protestors, to be brought to account. Where is justice in this country if not in the court room?” KEN FERO FILM MAKER

“Our support will continue for Alfie in his pursuance for justice and all those that have been treated as criminals whilst standing up for their rights! No Justice. No Peace.” - MARCIA RIGG, Sean Rigg Justice and Change Campaign

“The treatment of Alfie Meadows and his fellow defendant are a disturbing development in the politicisation of policing and criminal justice in a clear attempt by the state to suppress dissent, especially amongst young people. Many others are, or have been, serving long sentences on questionable grounds after attending heavily policed peaceful protests where kettling took place, aka arbitrary mass detention. That Alfie, who nearly died from his injuries, remains in the dock whilst the perpetrator(s) has never been called to account is a disgrace. As an Occupier and mother I support the Defend the Right to Protest campaign and the rights of all young people to protest without fear of assault or arbitrary arrest and prosecution. Our children should not fear death or detention when calling for education for all.” SASKIA KENT, Occupy London supporter

“During this difficult time when Alfie faces the appalling prospect of a retrial for violent disorder, we demand the that charges are brought against the real villains of the peace – the police officers that systematically carried out violent acts against protesters such as Alfie. As lecturers, we have a duty to stand in solidarity with our students and to continue to campaign for Alfie in his fight for justice.” MARK CAMPBELL, University College Union, National Executive Committee

“I am in support and stand in solidarity with Alfie as the sister of Christopher Alder who was unlawfully killed at the hands of the police in 1998 as seen on CCTV footage he was left to die at the hands of the Police, no one ever held accountable. Alfie is lucky to be alive today to tell the tale as many others that have lost their lives at the hands of the police and the state are not. We as citizens of the UK have a right to peaceful protest without the fear of losing our lives or being battered to a pulp by those that are supposes to help, reassure and protect, if we stand against injustice. Justice for the ordinary citizen when the police do wrong!” JANET ALDER, Justice for Christopher Alder

“Our government is fond of lecturing selected other countries about civil liberties and human rights. But over the last 20 years successive Tory, Labour and Coalition governments have made fundamental inroads into the right to protest and to voice collective dissent in our country. As the dissent grows in response to deepening recession and ongoing injustice at home and abroad, so too is the straight jacket on all our rights. If we stay silent, we will find those freedoms gone. Now is the time to act and speak out. And also to ensure that rights that were won over centuries – and which survived two World Wars – are at the centre of what will be in many areas a major debate on policing and justice – the election of police commissioners later this year. Don’t let those positions fall into the hands of people who back aggressive policing and who fear democratic protest. Wouldn’t it be far better to have guardians of civil liberties, like justice campaigners and human rights lawyers, in those posts?” GEORGE GALLOWAY MP

“Police should not receive protection when they are guilty of misconduct and abuse. They must be held accountable for their action and receive punishment fit for their crimes. Police are supposed to prevent crimes not cause them. I have witnessed first hand numerous inappropriate actions by police at the student protests, protests that were organised in response to serious and legitimate concerns about the scrapping of EMA and tripling of tuition fees leading to an inequality of access to education and economic oppression for a whole generation of working class young people. Alfie Meadows sustained shocking and severe injuries through a brutal, unnecessary, inappropriate attack on him by Metropolitan Police officers. He has suffered enough and justice is way over due.” ZITA HOLBOURNE PCS NEC, National co-chair BARAC

“I was in Parliament Square just as Alfie Meadows was, officers were acting like thugs, it is lucky nobody was killed by the police as they where at the G20, Aflie is testament to that. Yet how many of those officers have been brought to any sort of justice? None even the officer caught on camera beating the G20 bystander is yet to be prosecuted. Alfie Meadows is on the receiving end of disproportionate attack by the police and the courts, clearly designed to deter protests, we must all defend him.” ED BAUER, Education Officer Brimingham Student Union

“This was a political attack on the democratic right to protest. Alfie stood up for what he believed, at a point where the met were trying to criminalise dissent to delegitimise it. He’s been through enough trauma already. It’s time for some real justice.” SOREN GOARD, Education Officer Goldsmiths College

“I’m appalled that Alfie is facing another trail after the utter hell he has been through. The police should be on trial for the life-threatening injury inflicted upon him, not persecuting those exercising their right to protest. Drop th charges now” SEAN RILO RACZKA, ULU President

“The decision of a hung jury in Alfie Meadows case should not just be a concern for himself, or his family, but for our entire movement. The desire to send Alfie to prison comes not from seeking to uphold the law, but from the will to suffocate dissent to Tory austerity, and police brutality. Alfie’s fight is our fight, we need justice for Alfie and freedom for political prisoners.” NATHAN BOLTON, Uni of Essex President Elect.

“There is an assault on education by the Con Dem government and in response a strong protest movement has risen. It is no surprise that this has been criminalised. Protest and the police may assault you and they put you on trial. We have to raise a storm, the all out assault on everything from the NHS to legal aid, is accompanied by an attack on civil liberties. Resistance must go forward not just on behalf of Alfie but for all who stand up for a better future and in doing so risk being knocked down by our neo-liberal government” DEREK WALL author of ‘The Rise of the Green Left’

Day 8 saw the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Alfie. Michael Mansfield QC began his examination of Alfie with a couple of observations. Referring to the recent David Hockney exhibition ‘A Bigger Picture’, Mansfield suggested that one of the interesting things about this exhibition was Hockney’s use of trees, and then when you get up close to see the details (and he asked the jury here to bear in mind the use of extracts and clips in the case), you suddenly, he suggested, notice that there’s a disconnect – ‘the branches don’t need other branches, the leaves are disembodied’ – and that it’s only when you step back and see the context that you see that it’s a very different picture. ‘Bear this in mind if it’s useful,’ he advised the jury.

Mansfield talked about the two contexts of the day of the 9th of December that he’d already mentioned in his questioning of silver commander Johnson: the context set by the police themselves that day, and their ‘deeply flawed’ approach in the way they handled the number of protesters in Parliament Square, the length of the containment that day, the ability of vulnerable people to leave, and so on – all of which is there in the lead-up to the context of Alfie’s charge. There is also, Mansfield said, there is the context of Alfie’s background: a young man with a serious interest in education, protesting at place that has been a place of law-making for 2000 years, all the way back to Thorney Island. How, Mansfield asked the jury, did Alfie come to be caught up in these circumstances?

During his direct examination of Alfie, Mansfield asked about what difficulties he had encountered during his studies at Middlesex. Describing his ‘brilliant’ first year, Alfie then described how, in the Spring of 2010, the university had announced they would be closing their Philosophy department, and how this had made him ‘very upset’ and worried for the future of Philosophy at post-92 institutions. Mansfield then asked Alfie about his involvement in any protest at Middlesex, to which he replied that he had been involved in the occupation, was aware of the bigger picture of education cuts to post-92 universities and had been on all the previous student protests in late 2010, along with other Middlesex students, lecturers and students from Kingston university (where the Middlesex postgrad Philosophy department had moved). Mansfield asked Alfie about his experience on previous demos, which Alfie said included seeing FIT intelligence gatherers (photographers), use of batons by riot police and of kettling on Nov 24th at a protest in Whitehall. Alfie also described the ‘witch-hunting’ of students by right-wing blogs who asked their readers to send in names and addresses of students after the protest at Millbank, and the arrest of 200 people (later released without charge) and the taking of their details at a protest on December 1st, and how during his disciplinary at Middlesex for his involvement in the occupation, he had been shown photos of himself taken from campus CCTV and Facebook. Alfie said in the wake of this, he had read advice on Fitwatch as to how to protect your identity and to avoid being filmed by police intelligence-gatherers on protests.

Much of the rest of the examination-in-chief was taken up by a lengthy and detailed description of events on the day of the 9th Dec – timings, locations, who Alfie met up with. Alfie described the various points of the day where he had seen people crushed as they entered Parliament Square where barriers had still been up, and times when protesters had been hit by batons and shields, when protesters realised a full containment had been put in, how they were directed to various exits, all of which were closed, when police had pushed down Whitehall on horses, and how people had used railings to protect themselves from both the horses and police batons and shields. Alfie said that when he had seen police using long shields and batons to hit protesters he felt ‘protective’ of other protesters and that he had touched the side of a piece of railing as he helped others try to defend the crowd from the police at around 6pm. Barriers had been placed upright at the corner of Whitehall and Parliament Square to form a defensive wall against police who were using batons over the top and sides and poking them through. There had been surges in the crowd and then police from the side. Alfie said he had turned his back to the police and had been hit on the top of his head, to the right. He described being in ‘huge amounts of pain’ and had to push his way out of the crowd, and how he had bumped into Professor Peter Hallward, who had realised that he wasn’t in a good way, managed to get the police to let Alfie out of the containment, but wasn’t allowed by the police at the cordon to go with him. Mansfield indicated at this point that Alfie had suffered a fractured skull and spent several days in hospital.

Lofthouse, for the prosecution, reminded the jury that they were not concerned with the rightness or wrongness of the protests or issues themselves. Lofthouse suggested that chants of ‘f*** the police’ on the day of the protest suggested some were seeking a confrontation with the police, to which Alfie said ‘I didn’t chant that’. Lofthouse suggested that Alfie hadn’t mentioned misbehaviour on the part of the protesters, to which Alfie replied the he didn’t remember seeing any unprovoked violence against the police, but had seen placard sticks and a flare thrown. Lofthouse suggested that Alfie was giving a ‘one-eyed’ account of the day to which Alfie replied that he had seen a lot of protesters being hurt, but no police injuries. Lofthouse suggested that anyone obscuring their identity on a protest had ‘something to hide’ to which Alfie replied that the police take photos and info of a great many people on protests which had nothing to do with anything they were supposed to have done. During the screening of footage from around 6pm, Lofthouse repeated the assertion that Alfie had wanted to confront the police, that he was ‘looking for it’ to which Alfie replied that no, he had been trying to leave, was trying to avoid being hit by batons and was attempting to defend himself and others from the police in the face of the latter’s ‘unreasonable and aggressive’ behaviour. Alfie stated that he wasn’t trying to hurt the police at any point, nor was he ‘encouraging the crowd’ as Lofthouse suggested at one point, but only wanted to defend others, and had been scared by the behaviour of the police. The prosecution footage at this point ran on in to 18.10, at which point Alfie said ‘this is when I’m hit’, and stated that the police were ‘indiscriminately’ beating people on the head at this point. Mansfield in his re-examination clarified with Alfie that this was the time around when Alfie had been hit and asked him again whether he had carried out any ‘sustained and ferocious attack’ on the police at any point that day, to which Alfie replied ‘no’.

Day 9 saw several witnesses take the stand. Many of these were people who had met up with Alfie on the day, including his mother, and described in their own words what they had experienced of containment, confusion over whether there had been any way out, horse charges, baton and shield use, the directions given by police to protesters as to where to leave only to discover that these exits were also closed off, the single-file eventual exits (while being filmed) of those contained on Westminster Bridge later that evening. One witness, who didn’t know Alfie, was a Doctor who stated that she had treated between 5-10 head injuries (which protesters had said were from police batons) during the protest using her first aid kit in a makeshift treatment area. She said she felt this had been ‘her duty’. She told the court that she routinely wore a bandanna to protests because of the police evidence gathering teams. She stated that the age of people on the protest had been generally very young and that she had seen schoolchildren in their uniforms on the protest.

The final two days of last week saw the prosecution sum up their case against all five defendants, followed by the five individual final speeches by the barristers of each of the accused. As I said, I’ll just focus on Mansfield’s final speech here, though there were important details in the defence for each of the other four that reinforced and amplified the final speech that Mansfield made.

Mansfield began by returning to a comment made by the Judge when Johnson was on the stand, to the effect that a breach of the peace was like ‘an elephant’, in that you know it when you see one but that it’s difficult to describe. Mansfield suggested that the elephant in the room in this case was the use of police batons, and referred to a piece by Banksy where he decorated an elephant in the same style as the wallpaper in a room. People reacted to the elephant differently, argued Mansfield. Some simply didn’t see it, some would pretend they hadn’t seen it because they couldn’t quite believe it, and others didn’t ignore it at all. Silver commander Johnson admitted that the log books revealed the elephant in the entry from 12.15pm on the night of 9th Dec with the entry regarding a young man with serious head injuries who was ‘likely to die’. The Prosecution, argued Mansfield, had known about this from an early stage, and about the context that led to it. If the buck did indeed stop with Johnson, Mansfield said, then a protester head injury would surely be a cause for ‘serious concern’. Mansfield said ‘you may think this is a serious omission in a case of this gravity’. Johnson had suggested that baton use had been ‘unremarkable’ that day – Mansfield stated that if that was the case ‘we should all be extraordinarily careful before we go out in to the streets or protest’.

Mansfield turned to the footage of the protest at around 18.10 when Alfie said he sustained the head injury. There can. Mansfield said, be no justification for what happened to him, but that it should not be understood as an isolated incident. What happened to Alfie formed part of ‘a pattern of serious misbehaviour by police that day’. We saw in the footage, said Mansfield, many young people that day wearing hard hats and bicycle helmets – they were not, he suggested, worried about violence from other protesters: ‘is that really that state we’re in now?’ Mansfield said, suggesting that it was, and that Alfie and others therefore were driven to legitimately resist this state of affairs and had a right to self-defence. Mansfield said that somebody has to be accountable for what is happening. Someone has to look back and say this is not how we do things: ‘In the mean time, ordinary people may have to defend themselves’. Johnson is now in charge of policing the Olympics, noted Mansfield, ‘these are not footnotes to history we’re dealing with’ but rather ‘the substance of public policing’. Mansfield returned to the HMIC and Facilitating Peaceful Protest guidelines he’d brought up with Johnson before and noted once again how there was a serious worry regarding the lack of guidelines on baton use to the head.

Turning to the use of horse charges on the day, Mansfield said that the footage shows a static crowd with no warning given that the horses are about to charge. This, he noted, took place after containment where people have nowhere else to go. This was treating people like ‘cannon fodder’ suggested Mansfield, and most importantly, where is any instance of ‘sustained and ferocious’ violence on the part of the protesters? Some placards are thrown after the horse charge and there are chants of ‘shame on you’, which Mansfield suggested ‘spoke for itself’. Mansfield said that the police were ‘mightily lucky’ that no one was killed that day – either Alfie or someone else as a result of the use of batons, or as a result of the horse charges.

Mansfield said that the jury must ask themselves whether Alfie honestly believed or may have honestly believed that he needed to defend himself or others from unlawful attack (actual or imminent) that day, and to bear in mind that context was everything. Mansfield then went through the day describing how police tactics panned out and how they could have been very different (‘low-impact policing’). He remarked that when he had asked Johnson if he would have done anything differently on the day he replied ‘no’. Mansfield described this as an attitude of mind that ‘percolates all the way down from the top’ and that this response exposed the ‘excesses of the day that were perpetrated on the heads of the young people’. Mansfield reiterated his claim that the kettling on Westminster Bridge at the end of the day was an act of ‘collective punishment’ and that we had seen footage of people crying, screaming, begging to be let off and terrified that they might fall off the side. For Johnson to blame the protesters coming up behind the protesters at the front for the crush was unbelievable, Mansfield suggested.

Mansfield concluded by suggested that from the police planning before the day to the kettling on the bridge was a ‘serious, excessive blot on the policing of public order in London’, where protesters, such as the Dr, but also Alfie and others felt compelled to do what the police are employed to do – to protect. The moment Alfie began to turn away from this duty, Mansfield ended, he received the injury that almost killed him.

Monday will see the judge summing up before the jury retire to consider their verdict.

Institutional racism within the police force has once again been evidenced with the recent recording of PCS Alex MacFarlance racially abusing a young black man in the back of a police van during the summer riots, after strangling him, see here. Only after widespread public outrage has there now been enough pressure to force the CPS to review their decision not to press charges against the officers involved.
Days after this evidence was released, CCTV footage was leaked showing the same officers involved in physically assaulting a black teenager hours after the racial abuse incident, see.

Since both young men coming forward, Scotland Yard has confirmed there are now investigations into 10 new allegations of racism. In total 8 police officers have now been suspended for racist incidents.

We have also seen this year how reports show deaths in police custody have been underestimated (currently 5,998 deaths have been recorded between 2000 to 2010), anyone who dies following restraint without being formally arrested is excluded from death in custody figures, see article.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe will be speaking at the University of East London on “Policing in the 21st Century.” Hogan-Howe has previously been given the opportunity to discuss criminalization of protestors, institutional racism within the police and deaths in police custody at LSE earlier this year amongst other poor excuses he made, he suggested that deaths in police custody amounted to “one or two” in the last year:

Full footage available here.

Defend the Right to Protest amongst other campaigns welcomes and supports the protest organized by UEL students. Tuesday 17th April, 4:30PM: Duncan House Campus – University of East London, E152JB – Stratford High Street.

Stand up for justice, join the protest. Faceook event.

Justice for Christopher Alder

Fourteen years on, on Sunday 1st April, campaigners for Christopher Alder and his family protested in Hull and held a public meeting to renew an appeal for continued campaign for justice. On 1st April 1998, Christopher sustained a head injury in a scuffle outside a club and was taken to hospital. At the hospital, after he became confused and uncooperative, likely due to his head injuries, the police were called. Christopher, a black former paratrooper, died in police custody after being dragged from the police van and taken into the custody suite. He was placed face down on the floor where he remained for a full thirteen minutes until officers realised he was not breathing. By then it was too late. Only last year, Christopher’s body was discovered in a mortuary in Hull following a mix-up, which meant a woman called Grace Kamara was buried in his grave. A coroner returned a verdict of unlawful killing. In 2002, five officers were cleared of manslaughter and misconduct in a public office. Christopher’s sister, Janet Alder, has been fighting for justice ever since.

Over 100 family campaigners, including Campaign for Justice for Smiley Culture, the family of Sean Rigg, Defend The Right To Protest and trade unionists gathered outside the Queen’s Gardens police station and then marched through the city centre to a memorial meeting hosted by the Hull trades council. The RMT transport workers’ union organised a coach to the protest from London. The meeting called for greater links between the unions and the justice movement and a campaign network that supports families and continues to fight for justice for victims of police racism and violence.

United Families and Friends

The United Families and Friends Campaign (UFFC) is a coalition of families and friends of those that have died in the custody of police and prison officers as well as those who died in psychiatric and immigration detention. It also has members and supporters from campaign groups and advocacy organisations from across the UK.
The Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody report published in 2011 states: in total, there were 5,998 deaths recorded for the 11 years from 2000 to 2010. This is an average of 545 deaths per year. Despite the fact there have been 11 unlawful killing verdicts since 1990 there has never been a successful prosecution.
UFFC calls for an independent judicial inquiry into all suspicious deaths in custody.
We are asking all to sign and circulate the petition widely:

http://massobs.co.uk/demonstration/index.html

Justice for Trayvon Martin

Defend the Right to Protest also supported a demonstration of over 100 people demanding justice for Trayvon Martin outside the US embassy in London. Protesters wore hoodies and held packets of skittles in the air – symbolising what Trayvon, 17, had been wearing and doing which allegedly made him suspicious to his killer.

The demonstration was called by by Campaign 4 Justice, Ava Vidal, Tottenham Defence Campaign, BARAC and Inquest on Saturday 31st March. Mark Bergfeld, NUS NEC, spoke on behalf of Defend the Right to Protest at the rally. There were also speeches from Lee Jasper (BARAC), Stafford Scott (Tottenham Defence Campaign), Gary Macfarlane (Tottenham Defence Campaign), Weyman Bennett (UAF), Zita Holbourne (PCS), Merlin Emmanuel (Justice for Smiley Culture), Marcia Rigg (Sean Rigg Justice and Change Campaign) and comedienne Ava Vidal. Messages from George Galloway, newly elected MP for Bradford West, and Dianne Abbott, MP for Hackney North were read out, as well as a moving message from Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence who murdered in a racist attack 19 years ago. All speakers demanded Justice for Trayvon Martin and an end to racist policing and racial profiling.

Protest Against MET Commissioner: Bernard Hogan-Howe

Join the protest called by University of East London students and supported by Defend the Right to Protest. Students plan to protest against the Commissioner who has poorly excused racism, deaths in police custody and criminalization of protesters in previous lectures at LSE and Kingston University. Join the protest on Tuesday 17th April, 4:30PM at: Duncan House Campus – University of East London, E152JB – Stratford High Street. More information available here.

Join the facebook event.

Sorry for the delay: everything goes by the lawyers and they are understandably having a break after their 12 (at least) hour days, so this is a bit late.

[The level of detail over the past few days has been way too much to compact into useful posts here, but extensive notes have been taken, and there’s a lot we can and will say following the conclusion of the trial about what the police decided to do on the day in relation to baton use, mounted units, the various containments of the day, including the kettling on Westminster Bridge at the end of the evening, how police communicated what they were doing to the crowd (or not), the protections in place for vulnerable people at the protest, and so on. But all that to follow. Thank you to all who have supported Alfie and the others in lots of different ways: it really does make things less isolating and surreal]

Just to keep people briefly up to date, so far we’ve heard from silver commander Johnson, who was questioned at length and in great detail on day five of the trial by Michael Mansfield about multiple aspects of the police tactics used on the day, on the planning of the event and on any recommendations that followed the event that were highlighted in the Facilitating Peaceful Protest report.

Mansfield suggested to Johnson that the operation he had overseen on the day of Dec 9th was deeply flawed and as a result had created a number of dangerous situations that had come very close to causing death. He asked Johnson whether, in hindsight, he would have done anything differently to which Johnson replied that there were many variables that he had been unaware of at the planning stage, but otherwise that he felt it had been a ‘sound tactical plan’. Mansfield noted that Johnson had not yet noted in the course of the trial that in an entry in the log books from 19.30 it stated that there was a 17-year old with serious head injuries believed to have been struck on the head with a police baton [Alfie was actually 20 at the time, this is the police estimate of his age]. The debrief in the log stated that the protester was ‘likely to die’. Mansfield asked if this debrief had ‘concerned’ Johnson at all, to which Johnson replied that he had taken action to investigate the report. Mansfield noted that a later note records that the casualty was on route to Charing Cross hospital in a ‘semi-conscious and life-threatening/life-changing’ situation with a subdural brain haemorrhage and skull fracture.

Some of the rest of this day was given over to a discussion of the locations and crowd sizes, where Mansfield questioned Johnson over the disparity between the numbers he had suggested and what had been recorded in the police log books.

Day six saw Mansfield continue his questioning of silver commander Johnson and there were lengthy questions regarding exact timings of containments and the length of time (and temperature – around -4 degrees) of the kettle on Westminster Bridge that evening. There was a discussion about an open gas main on Whitehall, and whether Johnson had put any precautions in place to prevent any dangers arising from it. Mansfield asked Johnson about the provisions in place for those in the major containment in Parliament Square put in at 15.23 who had been injured, were sick or otherwise vulnerable. Johnson replied that on the ground circumstances might have made it difficult for officers to let people out. Mansfield suggested to Johnson that the kettling on Westminster Bridge on the evening of Dec 9th had been a form of ‘collective punishment’ and that there were reports of pushing and fainting in the densely packed crowd noted in the police log books. The court saw footage from the front of the police cordon on Westminster Bridge in which protesters can be heard saying to police ‘you are going to kill people’, ‘think about what you’re doing’ and ‘stop pushing’. Mansfield compared the containment here to a ‘Hillsborough situation’, to which Johnson replied that there had been ‘more than enough space’ for people to move about. Mansfield questioned Johnson’s tactics once again, asking him if he understood the difference between ‘high-profile’ and ‘low-profile’ policing to which Johnson replied ‘I use proportionate policing’. Mansfield referred to Johnson’s handling of the G20 protest and the way ‘thing went wrong there’. Johnson said he didn’t accept things had gone wrong, to which Mansfield responded ‘somebody died there’. ‘They did, yes,’ replied Johnson.

On day six, as well as addressing further tactical issues, Mansfield returned to Alfie’s injury and the police response to it. Johnson reiterated that letting people out of the kettle was an individual officer’s decision (‘it depends on the mood of the person’), but that he would expect someone with a serious head injury to be let out. Further to Mansfield’s challenge that there had been no ‘sustained ferocious violence’ on the day, which would have justified the containment and other tactics used, prosecution opted to show aerial footage from Broad Sanctuary, which showed a large crowd held by a police cordon. Prosecution then read a police interview given by one of the defendants, noted the time of arrest of all five defendants and concluded their case.

Day seven saw two defendants take the stand, with the second to conclude on Tuesday when we are back in court [I’m not going to use their names, other than Alfie’s, unless I’ve gotten a confirmation from them. There’s also a lot of detail involved in these examinations and cross-examinations concerning timings and locations etc. which I’m also going to omit in the main]. The first defendant, Zak, stated that he had come to the protest with his mum and brother because he believed in the equal rights of everyone to attend university. He stated that the mood of the protest had been happy and excited, with people dancing, laughing and standing around in the early part of the afternoon. The defendant noted various instances where protesters had started to be removed from the crowd by officers in the early part of the afternoon, and how attempts to leave the protest in order to get a train (the defendant had a job interview early the next day a long way from London) had been thwarted.

As the containment wore on, and he had become separated from his mother and brother, the defendant became increasingly upset at the actions of the police, noting a conversation he had had with a ‘middle-aged’ woman whom he asked ‘has anybody been hurt?’ to which she replied ‘every five minutes’. The defendant stated that protesters had been asking police about their tactics but that they wouldn’t converse, apart from to say ‘get back, get back’ or ‘stay back’. The defendant said he felt compelled to protect people from police batons, and was wearing protective shin-pads on his arms after a friend had told him that police had used batons against peaceful protesters at the G20 protest in 2009. The defendant stated that he used these to block baton blows aimed at himself and other protesters as the situation ‘started to escalate’, and used his goalkeeper gloves to push batons down away from himself and others who, the defendant noted, became increasingly ‘shocked and disgusted’ at the way the police were using their batons against protesters. When barriers started to come over the crowd from the back, the defendant said that it had been ‘the most logical thing’ for the people at the front to hold them in front of them to stop the police further attacking protesters. The defendant stated that he had a ‘moral duty’ to defend the crowd and had not moved back because he had some protective clothing on him, whereas others did not. The defendant noted that police were jabbing batons through the fencing and around the sides. The defendant himself had been struck by a baton in his eye-socket, which was noted in a medical report taken at the police station the same night, along with other bruising on his body (this was shown to the court at the end of the defendant’s defence). The defendant had been arrested that night as he came off Westminster Bridge, where police had set up a narrow exit where people left one by one.

Lofthouse, prosecuting, put it to the defendant in cross-examination, that it had been possible to distance himself from the police to which the defendant stated that he had tried to leave but had been refused by officers. Lofthouse repeated this claim, to which the defendant gave the same answer. Lofthouse put it to the defendant that there had been numerous attacks on the police by protesters involving various “missiles”, including masonry. The defendant replied that he had only seen lightweight placard sticks and a flag come over which posed little danger to police wearing padding, helmets and armed with truncheons.

The court heard from a witness (unknown to the defendant) called by the defence who was called to describe her experiences of the day. She described how fences had been taken down in Parliament Square as the march came in to avoid people being crushed against them. The witness described how she had had her hair pulled out by an officer on the day and the court were shown footage of the witness with a clump of hair missing from one side and further footage of the witness on the day in question trying to cover up the patch by pushing her hair over, actions confirmed by the witness. The witness stated that the barriers that had come over the crowd to the front had to be pushed over to avoid crushing those beneath, something she had feared would happen. The court then heard the defendants medical reports and two character witness statements, both of which stated that the defendant is predisposed to help other people if he thinks they are in danger or likely to be hurt.

The second defendant then took the stand, and stated that he had gone on the march with a friend because he believed that everyone had the right to free education. He stated that the mood of the march had initially been ‘very jolly’ but that he and others had felt ‘trapped and disheartened’ when people realised that the police had put a containment in place. The defendant stated how cold he had been as he was only wearing a t-shirt and jumper, not expecting to be kettled.

The trial continues on Tuesday.

The trial has now been adjourned until Monday. Yesterday (Thurs) saw Silver Commander Michael (or Mick) Johnson take the stand. Silver Commander oversees the tactical plan and decisions made on the day of an event (whereas Gold deals with the strategic intentions and Bronze units are on the ground (operational)). Lofthouse, prosecuting, began by reading through a long list of the events Johnson has overseen at different levels since he joined the force in 1980. These included: the unrest in Brixton and Southall in 1981, Broadwater Farm in 1985, every year of Notting Hill Carnival, the Poll Tax riots in 1990, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act demos in 1994, Kurdish protests in Haringey 1994-99, protests over the death of Roger Sylvester in 1999, J18 in ’99, Arms Fair protests in ’97 and ’99, several May Day protests from 2000 onwards (including, it was noted, the containment at Oxford Circus in 2001), the Bush visit in 2003, an Orange Order March, demos outside the Israeli embassy, Tamil demos, G20 in 2009 and many football games in Tottenham, Arsenal and Wembley.

The court heard that Johnson had taken Silver Command over the student protests of 2010 after “considerable disorder” at Millbank on the 10th Nov 2010. It was noted that there had been arrests made at protests on the 24th and 30th Nov protests where there had been a “degree of disorder”, and also on the 8th Dec ahead of the protest the next day. It was noted that the containment put in place on Nov 24th in Whitehall was carried out following information received.

The route of the 9th Dec protests had been arranged with organisers in advance. Johnson stated that no rally could take place at Parliament Square on the 9th Dec as it was ‘not open for use’. He said he had expected similar numbers on this protest as had been there on the earlier protests against fees and cuts. Sections 60 (commonly known as ‘stop and search’) and 60AA had been put in place after intelligence had been received that people were carrying weapons/shields/concealed weapons (‘Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that: there is the possibility of serious violence; or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon; or that an incident involving serious violence has taken place and a dangerous instrument or offensive weapon used in the incident is being carried in the locality. This law has to be authorised by a senior officer and is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights’. From the Met Police website). Section 60AA concerns face coverings: ‘(a) to remove any item which the officer reasonably believes is used wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity and (b) to seize any item which the officer reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose.’). Johnsonn noted that police had also received reports of robberies “in the area”.

Johnson then proceeded to run through some of the tactical decisions made as the day proceeded. He described the protest as ‘fairly volatile’ and ‘hostile’ at various points, and noted those times when police were commanded to don “NATO” helmets (these ones), though he stated that these were seen as a “last resort” as they hinder communication with the crowd. Johnson noted when containment of Parliament Square was put in, that this involved around “4-5000″ protesters, and how protesters were moved on to Westminster Bridge later in the evening and held there until after midnight. He noted “ferocious violence” and the “intensity of the violence” and stated that the violence on the 9th Dec was the worst he’d seen “since the Poll Tax riots”. Johnson mentioned his concern for officers and for the Treasury which he feared may be “set on fire”, as well as outlining his concern that violence was taking place in the West End on the same day. Vulnerable people in the crowd were said to be allowed out of the containment, though Johnson noted that this involved “small numbers”. Johnson stated that his “primary objective” before the vote on fees that day had been to ensure that protesters did not interrupt “the democratic process” by preventing MPs from entering Parliament to vote.

The trial continues.

The horse charges were described as a “passive push” and various protesters are singled out and identified by their clothing for future reference. Slogans and chants were noted, as well as the movement of the crowd and the instances where police were commanded to get ‘batons out’ and change from small shields to larger ones.

This evidence was followed by other police statements from the day that stated that the officers had felt “scared” at various points and again noted at which points batons were drawn. At one point one of these officers noted that he had struck a woman carrying a placard on her arm when she didn’t move back.

Tomorrow will see silver commander Johnson answer questions relating to the tactics of the day.