The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Why the Fortnum & Mason protesters’ case matters

The judge said we had not been personally intimidating, then found us guilty anyway. What now for the right to peaceful protest?

By Adam Ramsay Published 17 November 2011 18:44

If 300 football fans chant together and then one assaults a rival supporter, are they all responsible? If you're on a protest and someone commits a crime and you don't leave immediately, can you be held to account for the person's actions? That was the question put before Westminster Magistrates' Court as we, the first ten defendants in the trials of those arrested for staging a sit-in at Fortnum & Mason on 26 March 2011, faced our verdict. We were found guilty of aggravated trespass; nine of us were given a conditional discharge and order to pay costs of £1,000 each, while the tenth was also fined.

The prosecution was required to prove an act beyond ordinary trespass — which on its own is not a crime. In this case, it argued that the protesters demonstrated intent to intimidate. Michael Snow, the district judge, accepted in his sentencing that none of us had been personally intimidating towards staff and shoppers, but said that under the terms of "joint enterprise" we were responsible for the actions of other protesters.

For the first few days of the trial, prosecution witness after prosecution witness — staff, customers and police officers — explained that most of those inside the store were, in the words of the chief inspector on the scene, "sensible" and "non-violent". One key prosecution witness, when asked by the prosecution barrister if he had seen anyone inside the store doing anything he believed to be criminal, said: "No." The police officers co-ordinating the case held their heads in their hands.

There is some evidence that a small number of acts inside the store may have been intimidating. There is no evidence that any of us on trial was responsible for these. In fact, in the case of many defendants, no individual evidence has been presented at all, and in my own case the court was shown footage of me engaged in the intimidating act of . . . facilitating a meeting inside the shop. But the prosecution maintained that we were guilty because we didn't leave when the intimidating acts allegedly took place. We will find out if the high court agrees when we take the case to appeal.

In a sense, this sort of verdict has been waiting to happen. In the past, it was hard to go on a potentially civilly disobedient protest without first knowing each other and planning it together. But in the Internet Age, it is increasingly easy to read a tweet and just pitch up at a location along with strangers. Can you, in this situation, be accused of "joint enterprise" with everyone at the resulting protest, even though you have never previously met them? Should everyone at such a protest be held accountable for the actions of everyone else? The implications of a guilty verdict are pretty scary — in effect, the Crown Prosecution Service and District Judge Snow believe that the only evidence they need to convict you for protesting is that someone else at the protest did something illegal.

This rests on a ludicrous premise: that it is acceptable to drag through the courts a group of people whose only crime is to have attended a "sensible" protest. Aggravated trespass legislation was introduced in 1994 as an explicit attempt to criminalise certain types of protest. Yet even this dubious law wasn't written so broadly as to include any demonstration in a shop.

This new development is worrying. Perhaps more worrying, however, is the disparity between the Crown's enthusiasm in pursuing the case, compared to their complete failure to convict a single banker over the acts that led to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. We'll see them again in the high court.

Adam Ramsay blogs for Bright Green

Tags: Protest Student protests

More from Adam Ramsay

15 comments

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:01 — A meadows (not verified)

Aggravated trespass legislation was introduced in 1994 as an explicit attempt to criminalise certain types of protest- yes the protest of trespass, where burglary in all it's forms couldn't be proved.

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:07 — swatantra nandanwar

It seems that the Judge may have a point about a 'joint enterprise' and therefore all the protestors being held liable for the actions of a few foolhardy protestors.

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:34 — Mike S (not verified)

OK Swatantra. Please elaborate as it seems obscure to me.

Thu, 2011-11-17 21:15 — Alex Baldwin (not verified)

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the broadly left-wing New Statesman brands itself the "consumer website of the year"?

Thu, 2011-11-17 21:38 — tuttifrutti (not verified)

Good luck with the appeal. Little by little our right to peaceful protest is being eroded.
Satantra
So presumably you'd be happy to be held responsible for the criminal actions of someone you may not even know on the basis of joint enterprise?

Thu, 2011-11-17 21:41 — tuttifrutti (not verified)

Apologies, SWatantra.

Thu, 2011-11-17 21:50 — RFM

Can we apply the principle of 'joint enterprise' to politics as well? I for one would like to see the following people resign from Government over Dr Liam Fox's dubious dealings.

1. David Cameron.
2. Everyone else who is a Tory MP.
3. Everyone else who is a Lib-Dem MP.
4. Everyone else who is Labour MP.
5. The Conservatice Council of the town where I live.

Why not?

Fri, 2011-11-18 00:45 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

There is no irony; "Progressive" is itself a brand. The vapid, simpering, pseudo-radical, Radio 4 at prayer types are as pitifully obvious as the "Daily Mail" reader.

Fri, 2011-11-18 01:46 — Daniele1

Excellent point from RFM.
"joint enterprise" is a catch all phrase which reminds me of "collective punishment" imposed by the Israelis on the Palestinian population.Because if you get punished for somebody else's criminal offence because you happened to be in the same group of protesters, it is indeed "collective punishment" which, as far as I know, is totally against International law and basic human rights.
The protesters treated this way should definitely take their case to the European court of Justice. This is outrageous and surely Swantantra, you can't possibly think that's OK!?

Because if that was right then like RFM, I want to see the whole government being liable for Liam Fox's illegal actions. BTW, what is happening with Fox and his boyfriend's extravagances ? As I thought, NOTHING.Meanwhile, people are being arrested for standing in a shop without buying anything. We are slowly sliding into a Police state and hardly any one seems to mind.
Meanwhile, citizens from other European countries are expressing their outrage every day of the week, something which is hardly mentioned in the British media.
When are the people of this country start behaving like citizens as opposed to subjects waiting for the crumbs to fall from the table of their masters the bankers?

Fri, 2011-11-18 10:25 — swatantra nandanwar

Mike, I did reply in 2 lengthy post, giving reasons, but they were not accepted by the NS.
Maybe something to do with subjudice, bearing in mind the Spectator and Rod Liddle.

Sat, 2011-11-19 13:29 — Rico (not verified)

You people are on crack. Enjoy it as it will infiltrate what tiny minds you have to begin with.

You think this is about your right to protest? F&M is private property, full stop. It was trespass with theft and damage. And your argument is that you weren't allowed to protest?

Idiots. The most expensive thing in life is to go through it stupid.

Sat, 2011-11-19 14:16 — RFM

No, Rico, the argument is whether if certain members, but not all, of a group of protesters commit a crime during the staging of a protest, everyone who participated in the protest can be held accountable for the actions of the members who did commit a crime.

A key component of the joint enterprise test is the extent of what the participants agreed upon and whether the actions of those who committed a crime follows from that agreement.

Far from your thesis that this was trespassing, the protesters were in fact convicted of aggrevated trespassing, which is an entirely different notion from mere trespassing.

You can work this out from the fact that nobody who went to F&M that day to protest was arrested the moment they set foot through the door.

There is very little for you to be gained in trying to sound condescending when your obvious failure to grasp the nature of the issue at hand proves that your condescension is misplaced. That wasn't too complicated a phrasing for you, was it?

Fri, 2011-11-18 12:10 — jonesey (not verified)

lol @swatantra

I thought of a longer reply to your comment, but my dog ate it.

Fri, 2011-11-18 12:23 — swatantra nandanwar

Its probably now got indigestion!
But the NS I suppose has to bear in mind it doesn't want to end up in contempt of Court.
The point is people have to take account of, and responsibility for, their own actions as well as their associates in a 'joint enterprise'. It may all hang on whether this was a 'joint enterprise' in legal terms.

Tue, 2011-11-22 17:32 — Bobbi J (not verified)

We don't need the law anymore, we now have joint Enterprise. Scoop and sweep and criminalise everyone and anyone. Forget what they may or may not have done. Forget the plan or common purpose. Intent does not come in to it. "Peacefull" protest doesnt matter because someone in the group may have had other intentions. Intentions you knew nothing about, and could not prevent. It seems it is now illigal to NOT be telepathic.

And gosh when we start acting as if we are telepathic will they scoop and sweep and arrest us all for being telepathic. Because surely telepathy is a form of witch craft, the devils work. What ever next, the burning of women with long hair who happen to own a black cat and grow herbs in their window boxes. When did this transgression into the middle ages first start.

This is very sinister, what sort of country uses such a law to convict the innocent knowing they are innocent. If this was another country we would be up in arm with the way people where having their freedon eroded. Laws are in place to protect. This law does not protect anyone, it criminalises and it is wide spread.

They say it is a complicated law. Rubbish it is a lazy law that is being abused on a wide scale.