Fairford 2006 - news archive

The airbase was subjected to several demonstrations by anti-war protesters after it was used to launch B-52 bombers during the conflict. Figures show that between 2002 and 2004, the police operation cost £7.79m. Anti-war protesters won a legal battle on Wednesday to prove their rights to protest were violated when police detained a group of 120 campaigners in their coaches in March 2003.

I think this can be seen in the recent victory of the Fairford Coach actions and ongoing Fairford Five Trials. I wonder if the clamp down of dissent we have been seeing stemmed from a fear that is would give a focus to the unraveling of the plot that had been hatched. (If you don't know, the Fairford Coach Trials relate to a couple of coaches of people to were on their way to protest the war at the Gloucestershire US airbase but were illegally detained by the police.)

Anti-war campaigners scored a landmark victory yesterday when five law lords unanimously upheld the right to protest and ruled that police had acted unlawfully in detaining Iraq war protesters and forcibly turning them back.

The Law Lords today upheld a claim by peace campaigners that their rights to ''freedom of movement and lawful assembly'' were violated when police prevented them from attending an anti-Iraq war demonstration at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire in 2003.

Campaigners have won a legal battle to prove their rights to protest were violated when police stopped them from attending an anti-war demonstration. About 120 Iraq war protesters were held on coaches by police near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire in March 2003. The High Court and Court of Appeal had already ruled police acted unlawfully in holding protesters on the coaches. But on Wednesday Law Lords ruled police did violate the right to freedom of expression and lawful assembly. This overturned a previous High Court ruling that police did not violate the protesters' rights in this respect.

Anti-war protestors are today celebrating a ruling by the House of Lords that police acted unlawfully in turning them away from a demonstration and detaining them on their coaches for 2½ hours without arrests, violating their right to freedom of speech and assembly and freedom from arbitrary detention. The police had argued, at the hearing in October, that they were in fact protecting the protestors' right to life, by preventing 120 of them from reaching protests at RAF Fairford (Gloucestershire).

The defendants had tried to argue in court that the entire war against Iraq was a crime of aggression. But in March this year the law lords ruled that they could not use this defence: while aggression by the state is a crime under international law, it is not a crime under domestic law. But they were allowed to show that they were seeking to prevent specific war crimes from being committed - principally, the release by the B52s of cluster bombs and munitions tipped with depleted uranium.

The judge in the case of two Oxford based peace activists charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage has today discharged the jury after they were unable to reach a verdict. In a trial lasting 8 days the prosecution failed to prove that the planned disarmament action was a crime. The jury at Bristol Crown Court heard how Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch broke into RAF Fairford 3 and half years ago with the intention of grounding US Airforce bombers bound for Iraq. Last month the trial of two other peace activists also resulted in a hung jury. Both cases are likely to go to retrial next year.

To take today in reverse order, and give you the important news first, at 3.48 this afternoon the court reconvened and the jury announced that they couldn't agree on a verdict, and were in a stalemate. So, the prosecution have failed to prove that T and P's action, the damage they conspired to commit, was criminal, and this trial is over! Result! (Though not necessarily the end of the matter.)

Having reassured the jury that they’re not considering the huge question of the legality of the war as a whole, nor is their verdict going to set any legal precedents, the judge reminded them that what they have to decide is: has it been proved that each of the accused conspired to cause criminal damage? Also that because the charge is one of conspiracy, or agreement, they must logically either convict both T and P, or neither of them.

Cross examining Phil, Mr Houlder was the epitome of righteous indignation, harrumphing so hard that his chins shook. He showed a touching, though perhaps misplaced, faith in the honesty of senior members of the government, appearing particularly determined to defend the integrity of Jack Straw. As with Toby, Mr.H. asserted that Phil had no respect for democratic processes, despite Phil's evidence that he'd tried and exhausted all the usual channels such as lobbying MP's etc.

For now I wanted so share with you, dear IndyMedia reader, a couple of notable quotes from today's proceedings. The prosecution went first and his concluding statement could best be described as alarmist. The wigged wonder appeared concerned that an acquittal of Phil and Toby would precipitate "a descent into suburban mayhem." Indeed, later on, the defence council summed up the prosecution argument as follows: "This sort of thing should not be allowed. There ought to be a law against it..."

One area that they did pay particular attention to was Phil's understanding of what would be the effects of the 'Shock and Awe' bombardment, based on his knowledge of the pre-existing situation in Iraq. This was partly information from close friends who had been there, also information from Denis Halliday. Mr Halliday, former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General (1994-98) resigned from the UN October 1998 while serving in Baghdad as Head of the UN Humanitarian Programme.

Phil explained, as Toby had, that he'd done everything else in his power to prevent the war before deciding that he could only stop the commission of war crimes by damaging B52s at Fairford. He'd tried to influence politicians and the military, and explain his concerns to ordinary people, by petitioning MPs, demonstrating near parliament and at military bases, and attending vigils and marches. A particular example was a demonstration on Valentine's day at the gates of Downing Street, locked on to a huge pink heart bearing the message "WAR BREAKS MY HEART", to which Tony Blair didn't respond.

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution ie. it's up to the prosecution to prove that their actions were not reasonable. The standard of proof in the old-fashioned phrase is 'beyond reasonable doubt.' So, as Ed Rees (defence barrister) said to the jury "It is for the crown to prove that the defendants' actions were not reasonable and to prove it so that you are sure with no room for doubt." That being so, Mr Houlder has been having a go today.....

The very important points about all of this are that T and P didn't jump in at the deep end. They tried everything else they could to prevent the commission of war crimes, including communicating with politicians, using the "normal channels open to people in a democracy" despite Mr. Houlder's assertions that Toby and Phil had no respect for the democratic process. Only when nothing else had had the desired effect did they attempt to damage aircraft and prevent their missions.

The prosecutor, Mr Houlder's cross examination of Toby rounded off the morning and continued in the afternoon. Mr Houlder's boring inability to grasp the concept that fencing pliers are used for constructing and dismantling fences rather seemed to hold up the proceedings, but once he resigned himself to this intellectual failure he got on with the rest of it and Toby's evidence finished at about three o' clock.

After the jury were dismissed for a long lunch, the lawyers settled down to a discussion about how much, if any, of the evidence packs Toby and Phil were carrying during the action should be given to the jury. The prosecution's fear, we assume, is that allowing jurors to consider the documents and photos T and P had amassed to communicate their rationale and intent, might cause them to be as outraged as we all should be. (Thinks... if this works out, twelve good people and true might become activists overnight!)

TWO peace activists broke into an RAF base in a bid to stop B-52 bombers being used to commit war crimes in Iraq, a court heard. Toby Olditch, 38, and Philip Pritchard, 36, used bolt cutters to slice through the perimeter fence at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, intending to sabotage the long-range planes and the runway, the jury heard.

Jury selection took all morning, complicated by the delicacy of not wanting to exclude opinions but at the same time wishing to avoid embarrassment to jury members who may then have to explain to family members in the military why they decided to acquit.

Following the trial of Margaret Jones and Paul Milling - known as the 'Fairford Disarmers' - which ended with no clear verdict, now Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch - known as the 'B52 Two' - face trial. The trial begins Monday 2nd October at Bristol Crown Court, and is expected to last up to two weeks.

A JURY in the case of two peace activists accused of sabotaging military equipment were sent home for the night after failing to reach a verdict. Paul Milling and Margaret Jones used hammers and bolt-cutters to disable fuel tankers and trailers used for carrying bombs at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, on March 13, 2003.

A judge at Bristol Crown Court has ordered a re-trial in the case of two peace activists charged with damaging military equipment to stop planes taking off. After a day and a half of debate, the jury failed to reach any clear verdict.

A jury in the case of two peace activists accused of sabotaging military equipment has been discharged after failing to reach a verdict. Dr Margaret Jones, from Bristol, and Paul Milling, from Cumbria, were said to have disabled bomb-carrying trailers at RAF Fairford in March 2003.

THE jury in the trial of two peace activists accused of sabotaging military equipment in the build-up to the Iraq war have retired to consider their verdicts.

The jury have so far failed to reach a verdict in the first of three anti-war disarmament trials, now at the end of its second week of hearing in Bristol Crown Court

PLANS for a major bombing campaign against Baghdad "frightened the life'' out of two peace activists who sabotaged equipment on an RAF base, a court has heard.

Lawyers summed up today in the case of two peace activists on trial for conspiracy to commit criminal damage. Paul Milling and Margaret Jones are in court after attempting to hinder take-off of 14 B-52 planes to bomb Iraq at the start of the 2003 invasion. Milling and Jones damaged roughly two dozen bomb carrying and fuel vehicles for the planes, in a bid to delay their departure for Baghdad and give more people time to flee the city.

This week we had all the drama and strain of the trial, with marvellous support from all the people who picketed, sang, made posters and placards, and came to sit in court and hear the evidence. THANK YOU so much to all of you - and to our witnesses - and our dedicated legal team. If we get found guilty at the end of it all, it will certainly not be for lack of effort or support on anyone's part. Testimony from those who were in Baghdad before and during the bombing of March 2003 - particularly of Wejdy and Uzma - was harrowing. Paul and I found it hard even to listen to, at times. It clearly moved the jury.

A jury at Bristol Crown Court is being asked to accept for the first time in an English court that peace activists who damaged military property should be acquitted because they were trying to prevent war crimes. Dave Cockcroft, a long standing peace campaigner and local Green party member will be a witness for the defence tomorrow for Dr Margaret Jones and Paul Milling who are accused of "conspiring to cause criminal damage to property" at USAF Fairford in March 2003.

After three and a half years of legal wrangling, the trial of Dr Margaret Jones and Paul Milling for conspiracy to cause criminal damage at Fairford air base in March 2003 began today. If convicted, they face up to ten years in jail. A diverse, colourful and dignified group of well-wishers and supporters turned up to hold a vigil outside Bristol Crown Court. Photos, a short video and some audio clips are included.

A jury will be asked this week to accept for the first time in an English court that peace activists who damaged military property should be acquitted because they were trying to prevent war crimes. Court rulings have cleared the way for Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, whose trial gets under way today at Bristol crown court, to put the defence before the jury. The two activists, who are members of a group called Trident Ploughshares, caused £80,000 damage trying to stop US bombers taking off from Britain to launch the war on Iraq. They face a two-week trial on charges of conspiracy to cause criminal damage.

What follows is both a personal message from Margaret Jones to attend to special vigil on Monday 4th September to mark the start of the trials, as well as a conventiently packaged archive of all (or most) of the protests which took place around the airbase, for those who wish to read more about, and be reminded of, the wider backdrop to these trials.

The trial begins in Bristol next week for Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, who are charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage to military equipment at RAF Fairford in March 2003. They used hammers and bolt cutters to disable several dozen vehicles used to fuel and load cluster bombs onto US B52 bombers at the base during the initial invasion of Iraq

Also: Blockade of the Foreign Office, and Smash EDO rooftop protest

This is one more chance to say 'Not in Our Name.' To that end, we call for a quiet, dignified gathering outside the Bristol Crown Court in Small Street on Monday, September the 4th, starting at 9.00 am. (The street runs between Corn St and the Cenotaph area in the Centre. There's an HSBC bank at the Corn St end.) Everyone who feels as strongly as we do that what our government is doing – in Iraq, in Lebanon, Palestine ... . is utterly wrong, is welcome and urged to attend this first day, at 9.00. The trial is expected to run for two weeks - so friends and supporters are welcome to come on the other mornings, too. And to come into court and hear the evidence.

You are invited to attend the trial of the Fairford peace 'disarmers' at Bristol Crown Court, 4 September 2006. This the text from a mail I received re. the forthcoming trial at Bristol Crown Court . If you want to support the 'Disarmers' - and it seems like a no brainer to me - then come along. The people of Iraq need your support too. Peace.

Three years of pre-trial hearings later, the trials of Margaret Jones and Paul Milling (who disabled vehicles at Fairford air base in Gloucestershire in the lead up to the bombing and invasion of Iraq) are due to begin on 4th September. In addition to this latest press release posted to Bristol Indymedia, here are 3 years of Bristol Indymedia archices on the pre-trial hearings and history, which also involves other related cases.

This action is very similar to the issues around the Fairford Five, who's trials begin soon. It would be good to think that this bodes well for them and can been seen as a sign of hope that justice will be done!

An RAF fighter plane crashed yesterday en route to this weekend's Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford. The Harrier jump jet crashed near a pub and main road in Oxfordshire, apparently striking a car as it came down. The Ministry of Defence confirmed the plane crashed at about 5pm, but said the pilot ejected safely.

The huge U$ airbase at Fairford, Gloucester has apparently been ruled out of the planning for an attack on Iran because of "...the UK’s opposition to military action against Tehran" – the article is not clear if this opposition is the government ... or could it be that they fear the popular protest? Certainly during the Iraq war the base saw massive protests and it was clear the state was getting worried!

While this may be good news to many, Diego Garcia, a tiny military island in the middle of the Indian Ocean, may instead by used. from someone else writes: It seems the US has to have formal permission (under existing agreements under which the US operates at UK bases) from the British government to deploy from ANY UK owned base ... It would be an idea for everyone to write to MP's pointing this out and asking them to demand answers from the Blair cabal regards what permission they have or might grant the U.S with regard to D.G.

The huge U$ airbase at Fairford, Gloucester has apparently been ruled out of the planning for an attack on Iran because of "...the UK’s opposition to military action against Tehran" – the article is not clear if this opposition is the government (though I doubt it as that seems to be why Jack Straw was given the boot, because he opposed war with Iran) or could it be that they fear the popular protest? Certainly during the Iraq war the base saw massive protests and it was clear the state was getting worried!

The need for an element of surprise in any attack on Iran makes it difficult to gauge exactly when it might be imminent. Fairford offers the possibility of two tangible advance signals. The first is a more coordinated presence of B-2s at the base. It is probable that training for an attack would involve deployments of B-2 aircraft there for a few days at a time, to familiarise air and ground crew with the details of combat operations from a new base. It is likely that the first such exercise took place last week when three B-2s flew into Fairford within a few days in what appears to be the first orchestrated deployment of this kind.

With reports of bomber activity at RAF Fairford over the last week, alongside a new law which came into force on 1st April (not an April Fools) carrying a maximum penalty of one year for trespassing on 13 designated military bases - including Fairford - the indications are that the powers that be are gearing up for new wave of military action - probably against Iran - while simultaneously ensuring that any direct dissent can be dealt with in a far more draconian and effective manner than during the protests against military bases in the lead up to the aerial bombing of Iraq from British soil in March 2003.

People have been asking me what happened with the appeal of the ‘Fairford Five’ and the Greenpeace activists in the House of Lords. Others will know by now that the law lords unanimously ruled against us. Aggression, they said - the crime of attacking another nation - is a crime in international law, but cannot be said to be part of British domestic law. Therefore it is impossible for a British court to hear any argument that the war on Iraq was illegal. Therefore no British judge or jury can consider, as a matter of law, whether the war was illegal or not. Therefore the argument that defendants sincerely believed the war was illegal cannot be used as a defence argument against charges of criminal damage, etc. If this sounds like Alice in Wonderland to you, it probably is. But splendid protection for Tony Blair and co.

Greens fear we maybe witnessing the build up to an attack on Iran. Two B-2 Stealth Bombers and two B-1B multi-role bombers have been spotted at the Fairford RAF base over the last week (i). The base, in rural Gloucestershire, last saw action in 2003 when B-52 bombers flew from there to bomb Iraq. It is the largest USAF bomber base in Europe and the only one with maintenance facilities for the B-2.

Fourteen of the group, known as the Marchwood 14, are Greenpeace volunteers who say they should not have been convicted of aggravated trespass near Southampton docks because they were trying to stop an "illegal war". The same argument was also offered by five people who entered RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and allegedly tried to immobilise American B52 bombers which were later involved in "shock and awe" attacks on Baghdad.
...
The protesters argued that a crime of aggression under international law should also be considered an offence under section three of the Criminal Law Act 1967. But on Wednesday, Lord Bingham - one of the five law lords - dismissed that assertion, adding: "I am of the clear opinion that the crime of aggression is not a crime in the domestic law of England and Wales within the meaning of section three."