Boris v Democracy Village Court Report
Published:
June 19, 2010 15:53
by
Camilla
Neighbourhoods: westminster
On Mon Jun 14 in the High Court began the trial of the Mayor of London claiming repossession of Parliament Square from Democracy Village. This prime piece of real estate had been seized from the enemy class on Mayday, and a Village of over thirty tents, kitchen facilities, compost toilet and peace garden established over the course of the next six weeks.
From the outset, the villagers declared they would stay until all soldiers had come back home from Afghanistan. Villagers have regularly sallied forth to perform direct actions including spectacular banner drops from Big Ben, the roof of Westminster Abbey and, on our first date in court, even from the roof of the Royal Courts of Justice!
Ye Olde Boris
The Judge has ruled against arguments that Boris's GLA don't actually have the right to claim a possession order as they are only managers on behalf of the current owner, the Queen, who was "given" the land by Government in the GLA Act of 1999. Tony Benn will appear in court for the defence on Monday afternoon, and supporters are urged to attend the High court from 2pm on Monday as there will be lots of statements from the defendants. The case is likely to carry on at least a couple more days.
Boris Johnson vs Democracy
Boris faced 19 named defendants, among them Brian Haw, plus Persons unknown who had entered or remained without the consent of the GLA. From the very first Bank Holiday weekend, our tents were served with notices of the Mayor’s bye-laws. Unless you’ve filled in a form, attached a risk assessment, obtained public liability insurance and gained the Mayor’s explicit written authorization, you’re not allowed?to assemble or make a speech in any part of Parliament Square. It goes without saying that Election Meltdown, organisers of the original Mayday Carnival which occupied the Square, never asked anyone’s permission for any of their lawful and popular activities. These included erecting a 30-foot maypole and hanging New Labour class traitors from a large gibbet.
One of the first defiant acts of the Grassroots Government was to celebrate its inauguration by planting a young oak sapling in the very centre of the Square. This has since become the centrepiece of a beautiful garden of shrubs, herbs, flowers and vegetables. According to Boris’ minions, this amounts to £50,000 worth of criminal damage, the costs of digging up the oak tree and replanting the grass. The consensus view of the villagers is that the true criminal damage is the death and destruction wrought by illegal and inhuman wars.
Bindmans, the solicitors, represented the first named named defendant, Rebecca Hall, a long-standing villager, but several others stood up to represent themselves. Our first line of defence was that the Mayor could not claim repossession because he does not own the land – the Queen does! Boris’ men had a real headache, having to argue that effectively any tenant farmer, steward or estate manager had the right to take possession of land they were occupying even if that meant evicting the titleholder. Boris explicitly claimed he has the power to evict the queen from Parliament Square if he so chose. His minions argued that, whatever the law said, the fact that the Mayor had erected a fence for reseeding the grass back in October 2007 implied he had control of the Square, and therefore possession. So the queen can be ousted by her gardener! It also implies, what’s to stop us from putting up fences and saying it’s ours!
The main line of argument of the claimants is that Boris is a stalwart upholder of democracy and he fears that while a minority is camped on Parliament Square this will deter and prevent other demonstrations by the majority. The Square has a long and illustrious history as a site of protest, and as a tourist attraction. Supposedly, the presence of the village undermines this. Boris’ minions claim the Heritage wardens have been counting far fewer visitors than usual – though they can’t tell us how these estimates are arrived at. It doesn’t ring true with the experience of most villagers, who generally interact and chat with dozens of people everyday, tourists and visitors who are very curious to find out what is going on, and then almost always supportive. As far as demos go, the Village arranged plenty of space for the large-scale demonstration by the British Tamil forum on May 18, when well over a thousand men, women and children were spread around the square to commemorate the anniversary of genocide. Also on the Square on May 22, villagers held a tense but eventually fairly amicable exchange with members of March for England who had been intending to parade with the English Defence league. All of this is democracy in action.
Boris’ main witness, Simon Grinter, official manager of Parliament Square gardens, declared in his statement that the Welcome desk, a table laden with leaflets and info for visitors, acts as a ‘control’ point of entry to the Square. This despite the fact that it is possible to walk onto the Square from all four corners. Under cross examination by all the unrepresented defendants on Jun 17, Grinter was forced to admit that there was no disabled access to the Square at all; that there isn’t even a green man crossing, let alone a zebra crossing to get over to the Square; parents with children, or the elderly have to brave at least three lanes of busy traffic to get across at red lights. On the south side of the Square, some paving stones are so cracked and neglected they constitute a hazard.
Grinter has also let slip that that the first step Boris will take should his bailiffs manage to evict us is once again to fence off the entire Square ‘to reseed the grass’. No demonstrations will be allowed there for weeks on end. The villagers’ response to this has been to start reseeding the grass ourselves already, operating patch by patch. This is proving immeasurably cheaper, since it’s being done for love not money. In contrast to Boris, we’re insisting on unfettered public access. In most places, the grass is in perfectly good order. We’ll be exercising our rights there until the troops come home.
Clearly from the outset, Mr Justice Williams was prepared to set aside all precedent on feudal property law to help Boris reestablish his grip on the Square, and indeed ruled to that effect on Weds June 16, granting him jurisdiction to claim repossession. So, even though Boris is not the titleholder, the judge has ruled (without yet giving his full reasons) that Boris does have the right to bring the case - this is a potentially dangerous precedent for feudal property owners.
The Villagers rallied behind the moving declaration made by guerrilla gardener Simon Moore, invoking the Diggers, English Revolutionaries of 1649. Approaching the bench, he respectfully suggested that property was possessed by theft and murder. The Earth, he said, is a common treasury for all. No man has any right to buy and sell the Earth for private gain. Sir, he challenged Mr Justice Willams, ‘you would do a service for humankind to admit that.’
The case for the defence will begin on Mon Jun 21 at 2pm in the High Court, the Strand, and Tony Benn will take the stand for the defence, along with statements of defence from many of the unrepresented defendants. So, Monday afternoon is highly recommended for supporters to attend.
On Tuesday, much of the case will focus on Brian Haw and whether and by how much his protest has encroached on the GLA's turf. The democracy village will have a skeleton crew in court as they are focussing on a day of action against the cuts.
In theory, there will be a judgement on Wednesday, but with all the witness statements, and then further legal arguments about a possible injunction, insiders are suggesting it is more likely to extend through the week.
For more information see??http://meltdown.uk.net??http://democracyvillage.org
And join facebook group for regular notice of activities
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113998618637971&v=wall&story_fbid=125952344109265
Contact email: info(At)democracyvillage(d0t)org
Additions
Which court?
Published: June 20, 2010 14:49
by
David Mery
Do you know which court this will be at on Monday afternoon?
I can't find it listed. The page where I guess it should be listed is
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm
Thanks. -d
court report 17th june 2010
Published: June 20, 2010 19:26
by
court reporter "exhibit" p120
17 June 2010
Start time: 10:30am
Pg 118 Trial bundle
-Photo of tents on PSG probably taken 20th May roughly.
Underwood for GLA
Underwood: refers to BH and BT as Camping. BH corrects him and asks him to refer to it as a peace campaign.
SG: nobody at present has a licence
Underwood:
Pg 31 c
No records of the applications on file.
In 2007 BH was removed from the grass.
BH: Violently / unlawfully evicted.
SG: he came back on to the grass in 2009.
Pg: 159- tents on the grass.
J: asks for something in writing to reflect the Mayors position:
Underwood:
Mayor admits that each of the named defendants in proceedings is acting out of a genuine conviction and that each believes that his or her occupation of PSG is justified by that conviction….
So the Mayor does not challenge the genuineness of conviction of every defendant and their belief that they believe they should be there. They do not need to tell us their beliefs.
John Beckly- for Rebecca Hall (RH)
JB: Pg 193 RH Witness statement
Pg 197-8
SG: No evidence that RH has caused damage.
JB: There has to be ongoing maintenance to grass regardless if DV are on grass or not?
SG: damage caused leads to greater maintenance.
JB: Pg 65:
Pg 125
Pg 55 para 32
Tab 19 para 21 (8 lines down) = less than 30 pedestrians use the pavement per hour.
JB: Is his estimation exaggerated? There is a big difference.
Pg 57
Pg 179
Pg 56 para 34 of ws1
18.05.10 – British Tamil Forum – Photos? And video evidence.
Tamil protestors were and did occupy the entire grass.
(MF- not true)
Pg 204- no need for police intervention despite the opposite views.
Pg 194-5 RH statement
Pg 66 para 98.
Pg 5 of letters bundle.
We were not seeking to come to conclusion for RH but for 2 others.
J: but it was a package. Offer to move.
Jon Beckly submissions end: 11:44am
Mr Coverdale submissions: 11:45am
CC: Do you know of Maria G
SG: no, I know of her
CC: Do you know of the peace strike campaign next to Mr Haw.
CC: MG has been there many yrs. Are your saying you have no knowledge of her?
SG: I have not been introduced to her, not meet her, not seen her.
CC: not named as she is present on PSG for 4yrs, but as her demonstration is kept to pavement
SG: Edged blue on plans pg 4 shows the pavement which is not within GLA controlled land.
CC: Why do you make distinction between some people - as protestors, some as public and some not mentioned at all? Why are some things focussed on certain people and not others?
SG: if MG is on GLA land then see is one of the persons unknown.
J: yes all defendants from 5 -19 have asked to be tried.
CC: in your description Democracy Village and public distinction is made. There are a number of people using Democracy Village which has increased and Democracy Village has become an attraction since DV protestors have been present. You are saying that Democracy Village has turned people away, but actually know there have been more people visiting PSG than ever before.
SG: these proceedings are about those camping on the site not against those using the site, its about breaching the bylaws and those who do not have authorisations.
End 12:10
Josh Dunn: start 12:11am
There is no crossing for the public- I want to make an application for a crossing to in place as it is there duty to facilitate the use of PSG- there is currently no means of safe crossing to PSG.
CCTV evidence? Would like a copy- it would help show the actual goings on in PSG.
SG: GLA does not have any CCTV control of that area.
End: 12:25
Dirk:
Start: 12:26
End: 12:30
Friend:
Start: 12:31
F: I do not fit in your form, would you ever approve it? I have no liability insurance; I have no address- would you approve my application?
J: friend’s question is clear- he can’t obtain public liability insurance, he has no address and no money- would his application be approved.
SG: it’s unlikely
J: I would say it’s more than unlikely that his application would not be approved.
Friend: so it’s a waste of time me filling in form the?
SG: Probably
Friend: exactly
J: any evidence that any defendants have committed any breach of bylaws other than sleeping on PSG grass.
SG: No, there is Enforcement notices served against BH and BT for breach of bylaws- and Prof Knight for bringing engines on the PSG.
End:12:40
Mr Kinney:12:41
SG: there is no pedestrian crossing- I explained that I wait for the lights to turn red by Nelson Mandela statute and then I cross admittedly in front of stopped traffic, but then you can cross as the other cars are driving.
Mr Kinney: it’s not practical is it?
SG: no, but there are ways to get across.
Mr Kinney: Pg 59 Para 53
Reference: to 1st May service
At 5:30am I woke up on 2nd May 2010, and I saw the service taking place.
J: can you comment on that?
SG: I cannot comment, I think they were served on 1st May 2010, they may have been served on 2 May 2010.
End: 12:55
Prof Knight
Start: 12:56
Prof K: So it is correct that PSG will be fenced off iif we are successfully removed?
SG: need to do cleaning on paved areas and grass area. So the grass will be fenced off and grassed areas will be replaced
Prof Knight: so the grass will be fenced off and the public will be denied access for a considerable period of time.
PK: did u noticed a fenced off area in sq by the welcome desk
Corner nearest to big Ben 6 days of fenced off area- which has been there for 6 days.
SG:
No
PK: that is amazing.
13:00 break
Start 14:00pm
PK: Para 18 pg 53
Pg 173 – shows the engines
Heritage wardens to enforce the bylaws, make requests to leave
SG: if they stay they will be served an enforcement letter.
Choice of letters and photos can u say that is a balanced assessment of what is happening in PSG
SG: yes
Peter Phoenix:
14:20pm
PP: I attended the liaison meeting, RH, Jan and Paul Ridge and Chris Harris where the agreement was reached.
SG: No agreement reached. The meeting was fixed to explore to interim arrangement, but no consent was given.
PP: what was the difference between arrangement and agreement?
SG: Not sure there is a difference.
PP: That is my point.
PP: condition was meet that 3 people who came could speak on behalf of the whole village
Yes- as I said this morning.
PP: minimise infrastructure, big tent removed, and kitchen facilities were removed in accordance with your conditions.
SG: there has been liaison but not much movement on camp- reduce 15 tents, and stay off the grass.
PP: Were the interim arrangements discussed with the Mayor
SG: The Mayor was aware that we would have a meeting. Mayor was aware we would have discussion to seek to ltd further damage, not aware we would suggest North West corner.
PP: Where did this proposal come from?
SG: Mr Harris said he was going to have meeting- and I was happy with that.
PP: can I request the minutes of the meeting. As it was agreed at the end of the meeting, that the interim arrangement was agreed and satisfactory allowed us to stay, and we have complied with your requests.
SG: No mins, I have not seen any mins. –
Mr Foresly: Para 5 d of 2nd Order- re disclosure.
PH: I would like these notes to be disclosed – mins from meeting.
Pg 74 tb: para 6- only 1 event per day- do you think this should be changed?
SG: That is GLA policy.
J: don’t answer that
PP: would 1 person with a table be able to bring some forms and protest?
SG: they would need to get authority and go through application process, we would need to know in advance.
PP: during meeting we discussed that we would have some1 walk round and risk assessment?
SG: yes
PP: Monday health and safety officer came round and conducted the evaluation.
PP: we requested regular meetings are you aware of that
SG: that has not happened but yes you asked for it.
PP: you asked us to reduce it to 15 tents and we have- why did he reduce it to 15?
SG: 15 tents on Trag sq in 2005- Mr Harris must have agreed to it and thought it was
PP: my licence has not expired
SG: we have not given you a licence
PP: I beg to differ
PP: cost of insurance
SG: not sure- specialist events
J: would be costly
PP: so it would prohibit the less fortunate with minimal funds.
PP: at the meeting RH asked for a licence.
SG: You did not fill out our form but we took the letter from Bindmans as your application- The mayor is not against protest; he is concerned about the breach of the bylaws.
J: another 7 mins please and that’s it.
Letter of 24th May GLA response pg93 set out authorities decisions on behalf of RH and others for permission to camp on PSG and amounts to refusal.
15:10pm end stopped by judge
PH: Start 15:27pm
PH: How much/ what % of your work is concerned with PSG.
SG: 25% of my work
PH: Does it involve you personally to visits PSG?
SG: I have a team, but I visit also.
PH: The policy of the sq is laid down by the Mayor or the assembly?
SG: The policy of the sq is laid down by the Mayor not the assembly
PH: at what level were they approved? Who makes them actual?
SG: they are drawn up and ultimately the Mayor gives his signature
PH: when did you start your role?
SG: Aug 2009 I came into this role.
PH: so you could not give personal evidence about b4 2009
SG: no
PH: how could the guidelines be changed?
J: he applies the guidelines
Ph: would it be open to him to recommend changes
SG: yes I can recommend- I have good understanding of authority- I have worked for GLA for 10 yrs
PH: who looks at applications?
SG: Applications are looked at by events lettings officer when an application is made. I don’t personally approve all apps but I am aware of them.
I have 2 events and lettings officer and they report to an amenities officer who reports to me.
SG: the guidelines are applied uniformly to all applicants
Pg 54 para 28
No date stamp on photo so can’t say for sure the date of photo
Pg 56
PH: does GLA accept that this is a particularly appropriate place to protest
SG: PSG- yes
PH: para 96 pg 66
You refer to concerns regarding Winston Churchill- I ask, could be that it’s a state event unconnected to BH protest, so it would be
SG: no it was not related to BH
Para 101 in your witness statement = Not correct
Para93 2nd line I attach reports from eve standard form village,… exhibit pg 120 Maria G
PH: So you did have her name so why is she not a defendant?
Ph: my client is concerned that MG is playing agent provocateur role relation to DV protesters and the fact that her name is not d even though her name is known
PH: Who took the decision as who are named defendants?
SG: GLA team
PH: Including yourself
SG: Yes
PH: were there any discussion about MG being Defendant
SG: No
J: interrupts
Ph: he is the policy making behind the lawyers
J: she has not been joined and that is the position. Move on.
Ph: pg 131 para 8- 2nd statement
Pg 160- photo exhibited- it is clear there are some intrusion onto the grass.
SG: Yes
PH: I looked at your plan, you have given evidence that edging stone is also GLA land
PH: what harm does cause if one is on the edging stone?
SG: it is untidy if nothing else.
PH: so there is no question that you would tolerate a single bed size of encroachment onto the edging?
SG: No all GLA bed to be cleared.
Judge: CS has left so Underwood revisit the case
Underwood: no sir
Judge: Mon 14:00 defendant’s cases
1st defendant and then other defendants to follow.
PH: application- 1. objects to attachment of various statements and 2. records to from heritage wardens
Mr Syed Shah pg 135
I had proposed with Mr Underwood some redactions which were agreed-
There are other matters they don’t agree with-
I want to ask for Mr Shah to attend or for the statement to be withdrawn- they deny that Mr Shah ever told then to leave the sq.
(All denied note passed up)
J: Syed Shah to be called or memo removed
BH: it is a memo not a witness statement
PH: Pg 160 Trial Bundle
And end pg 169.
Pg 190 – 190 a-b
Syed Shah gives of impression of aggressive behaviour
Recognise the issue as to weigh, but my clients feel they are prejudice
Underwood: discretion of judge. BH cannot not call a witness to which we rely on… the m case on this is that as of June 2007 pg 31 c at that point BH did not have authority to be on garden and that he should seek auth and he did not.
It is common ground that he was removed from the ground in 2007. See bH ws
There is not record of BH encroaching on ground bête 07-08 and not record of BH in Oct to Nov.
J: BH does not deny he has not used the garden- am I required to investigate bad manners of BH or BT
Ph: it would lighten the tone.
J: it does mean that the enquiries are on a very narrow issue.
Ph: why were they put in then? -
J: I can assure BH that they will not influence me as to his character.
END 16:07
Court 71
Published: June 21, 2010 11:11
by
David
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_queens.htm
lists:
COURT 71
Before MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS
Monday, 21st June 2010
Not before 2 o’clock
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/10/0367 The Mayor of London (on behalf of the Greater London Authority) v Hall & ors Pt Hd
Mud
Published: July 02, 2010 09:49
by
Jake
"This has since become the centrepiece of a beautiful garden of shrubs, herbs, flowers and vegetables."
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48233000/jpg/_48233063_009711475-1.jpg
All I see is mud. Bloody disgrace. This square belongs to the whole country, not to a handful of people with noisy poltical views who want to monopolise and destroy it for their own ends.
Latest articles feed
"democracy in action" ?
"Also on the Square on May 22, villagers held a tense but eventually fairly amicable exchange with members of March for England who had been intending to parade with the English Defence league. All of this is democracy in action."
having a "fairly amicable exchange" with fascists is "democracy in action"? is it really?