I think the reasonable suspicion point might be a red herring. The police have to act in accordance with the law of the land at the time. It is not for them to second guess whether the Home Secretary acted illegally. The link I provided earlier seems to say that those arrested won't get damages as long Yvette Cooper acted in good faith.
Most arrests for decades
- Thread starter MNW67
- Start date
I think the reasonable suspicion point might be a red herring. The police have to act in accordance with the law of the land at the time. It is not for them to second guess whether the Home Secretary acted illegally. The link I provided earlier seems to say that those arrested won't get damages as long Yvette Cooper acted in good faith.
Those arrested were highlighting what they saw as the plight of Garzans, not encouraging criminal trespass and criminal damage of military planes both of which can be dealt with under existing laws. Kieth has proscribed PA as a terrorist group because Re form are making headway in the polls. Looking at the link you gave to the 2000 Act, anybody who uses criminal damage to influence political change be proscribed as a terrorist. That includes the damage to speed cameras in London. The right and the left should be both be concerned.Section 12 is pretty clear.
Terrorism Act 2000
An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.www.legislation.gov.uk
They are Proscribed.
Holding a Placard saying"I support the Baked Bean Action Group" is inviting support for the Baked Bean Action group.
There doesn't appear to be a need for motive.
No
Maybe. but its up to him to deproscribe Hamas 2.0 if that is his plan.
Is a banner that says I support xyz banned group…., followed by stop the geno cide, inviting support for the group or inviting support against perceived geno cide? The police must have taken legal advice.
I think they were challenging the banning head on.
It’s not a left wing concept, albeit there are different views about its application in this conflict.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,811
- Reaction score
- 5,354
- Country
It is the requirement for the arrest to be lawful, its really all that matters: Sec 24 PACE - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24
The arrest is lawful if they follow the procedure. Subsequently finding out that the person had not committed an offence doesn't change the lawfulness of the arrest. A person who has their conviction subsequently quashed or is found not guilty has no power to sue.
I would suggest that is your red herring.
I think everyone agrees with that.
You started by asking whether the arrested protestors will be entitled to damages if Yvette Cooper loses the Judicial Review. That is the bit I have been concentrating on. It is a very esoteric point of law. The article I linked seems to suggest that, as long as she acted in good faith when she banned them, then they can't get damages. But if she didn't act in good faith e.g. she had evidence that Palestine Action are not a terrorist group, but she banned them anyway, then they will be able to claim damages.
So, Home Secretary bans Palestine Action. But she knows they aren't really a terrorist group. As a result of the banning, the police lawfully arrest those supporting Palestine Action. There is a judicial review. It is decided that Home Secretary was wrong to ban them. And that she knew it was wrong. In that situation, that article seems to be saying that those arrested can claim damages for false imprisonment etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,811
- Reaction score
- 5,354
- Country
You need to read sec 4 and 5
Terrorism Act 2000
An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.
you might find this interesting also:
The judicial review proceeds on the argument that Proscription limits the elements of the group's lawful right to free speech and assembly. (ground 2) A10 and 11 ECHR. Ground 7 is that the HS should have consulted them.
What nobody here (and probably at least some of the useful idiots who protested) knows is what secret plans PA had. There was some talk of targeting Jewish owned businesses and also defence contractor personnel. If true - you have an oven ready terrorist organisation.
Last edited:
Explain please.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,811
- Reaction score
- 5,354
- Country
was editing and didn't see your reply - have another read. See approved Judgement - the heavy work has already been done.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 1,707
- Country
I missed the spilling error
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,984
- Reaction score
- 3,069
- Country
Both, and one is a criminal offence.
How is saying I support West Ham an invitation for others to support them? It’s a stand alone statement.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,811
- Reaction score
- 5,354
- Country
You stand in a public place and say "I support West Ham". It's an implicit invitation. You invite us to look at you and take influence from your message. otherwise why are you there. What is the point of lawful protest. It is to get your message heard.
Is that why the banners were phrased in that particular way. I did wonder if there was some legal reason.
Similar threads
