|
from 16 february 2003 blue vol II, #70 |
|
|
Guilty verdict at Scarborough Magistrates' Court 
by Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow
|
|||
|
from 16 february 2003 blue vol II, #70 |
|
|
Guilty verdict at Scarborough Magistrates' Court
by Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow
|
|||
It was a difficult case. Lindis Percy has struggled for over 16 years to
bring the Ministry of Defence Police Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service
to account concerning unsafe law - specifically Military Land Byelaws round US
bases in the UK.
Lindis has challenged the validity of byelaws three times since 1987 because
of being arrested, detained, dearrested, 'reported with a view to prosecution'
and occasionally charged under the byelaws round the country. These cases
have never been allowed to be brought to court so that a challenge to the
unsafe law could be brought.
Lindis was party, with John Bugg in 1993 in a 'case stated' action in the High
Court London, after the Military Land byelaws at Menwith Hill were declared
'defective on their face and no longer able to bring a prosecution' at Menwith
Hill. New byelaws were drafted and brought in in 1996. These were challenged
by two women in 1997. The eventual outcome was that the byelaws were valid.
Lindis has a case in the Harrogate Magistrates' Court under the byelaws at
Menwith Hill when she will again be challenging the validity of the 'RAF'
Menwith Hill byelaws. This was brought after she again debilerately broke the
law in July last year so that the issue of unsafe law could be tested in
court. It will be interesting to see if this case will be allowed to come to
court.
The case in Scarborough Magistrates' Court today arose after Lindis was
charged with allegedly causing criminal damage to a byelaws sign on 7
September 2002. Her intention on this day was to deliberately break the law
(byelaws at RAF Fylingdales) so that a case could come to court and a
challenge to the validity of the byelaws be brought.
She had removed a byelaws notice at RAF Fylingdales on 7 September last year,
watched for over three and a half hours by three MDPA officers. They had
refused to arrest her under the byelaws on two counts. She has gone to
deliberately test the law and so to force an arrest under the byelaws which
are invalid and therefore unsafe.
When met by a Ministry of Defence Police Agency (MDPA) officer on the
'restricted area' covered by the byelaws Lindis immediately said that she was
in breach of the law applicable to the byelaws. The MDPA officer took no
notice of this; nor did his three collegues. Acting Inspector Lucy said that
the byelaws were 'not in force' that day despite the notices round the base
informing the public that they were.
Lindis was threatened with being forced into a police vehicle despite the MDPA
officers present being unable to say what law they would be using.
Lindis then decided to 'interfere' with MOD property (an offence under the
byelaws) by trying to remove one of these byelaws signs (byelaws signs round
the base which said MOD PROPERTY, KEEP OUT, MILITARY LAND BYELAWS IN FORCE).
In evidence in Scarborough Magistrates' Court today three MDPA officers said
that they had been instructed not to arrest anyone under the byelaws as there
were 'anomolies' to this law. The evidence of the three MDPA officers was
disturbing and duplicitous.
Three Magistrates hearing the case (yesterday and today) found Lindis guilty
of removing the byelaws sign. The Crown Prosection Service produced case law
which said that if the usefulness of the sign had been impaired (removing a
sign) this would amount to criminal damage. There was no other physical
damage to the sign despite PC Wyatt fabricating a story that there was.
PC Wyatt the arresting officer had given evidence to say that Lindis had
deliberately damaged the sign by 'levering the sign on the pole with her
foot'. This did not happen and the Magistrates in their ruling at the end of
the case said that they believed the version given by Lindis rather than PC
Wyatt.
At the end of the verdict by Scarborough Magistrates Lindis quietly gathered
her files, and saying 'Excuse me' left the court before any hearing of a
sentence and costs.
Despite threats of the Magistrates possibily issuing a 'Bench warrent' for
Lindis's arrest or her being 'in contempt of court', the Magistrates asked the
Clerk of the court to contact Hull Magistrates' court to enquire (because of
the 'serious nature of the offence') how much Lindis owed to the court. She
owes over £3,000 which she has paid regularly over many years at £5 per week.
The Magistrates said that because of this state of affairs they would not be
sentencing Lindis to any fines, prosecution costs or compensation.
They decided that they would impose a conditional discharge of 12 months.
Lindis will continue to try to bring this issue to court despite the deceit of
the MDPA officers and the Crown Prosecution Service to do everything in their
power to prevent a challenge to the validity of military land byelaws to come
to court.
Military Land Byelaws are the first line of legal protection for bases such as
NSA Menwith Hill, RAF Fylingdales, USAF Mildenhall, USAF Lakenheath and USAF
Molesworth. Despite there being many arrests under this law, the MDPA and the
Crown Prosecution Service have, over the years blocked any chance of a
challenge to the byelaws.
