Smash EDO campaign

R v Saibene and others was an English trial of seven of the "Smash EDO" campaign. On 16–17 January 2009 the activists broke into the armaments factory-office in Moulsecoomb and damaged equipment worth around £200,000. They were cleared by the jury of conspiring to cause and causing criminal damage. The jury accepted their defence that they were acting with lawful excuse by aiming to prevent Israeli war crimes during the 2009 Gaza War.

Background

EDO MBM Technology Ltd is a unit of ITT Integrated Structures, once owned by EDO Corporation. It has an armaments factory-office in Moulsecoomb, Brighton and Hove.

Many actions since 2004 implored that the corporation should close or convert its factory to civilian use (road blockades, rooftop occupations, attempted weapons inspections, marches through the city centre of hundreds of protesters and three peace camps set up in woodland adjunct). Thereby arrests were made by Sussex Police, mostly under public order Acts. The campaign settled into the name "(the) Smash EDO Campaign".

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court brought into British domestic law by the ICC Act, makes it an offence for British citizens and residents to act in complicity in war crimes that take place anywhere in the world. In nearly all criminal trials, protesters against the company have argued that the company acts unlawfully by assisting war crimes committed in Iraq and the Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza. Magistrates in Brighton have generally refused to acknowledge the argument, but demonstrators have frequently been acquitted.

In March 2008 a documentary, '' On the Verge'', about the campaign was released.

Break-in at EDO MBM Technology

On 17 January 2009 activists Elijah Smith, 42, Robert Nicholls, 52, Tom Woodhead, 25, Harvey Tadman, 44, Ornella Saibene, 50, all from Bristol, raided the factory in Moulsecoomb, who pre-recorded their motivation in a video. Computers and filing cabinets were thrown out of windows and per the police assessment, "extensive damage was caused". Smash EDO said that they had performed a "citizen's decommissioning" of the factory in response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza. After these acts the activists lay down on the floor and waited to be arrested. After arrests, the motivations were posted on the Indymedia website. The total damage caused was later estimated at £180,000 (US$275,000). Police arrested people outside the factory including Christopher Osmond, 29, and Simon Levin, 35 of Brighton (joined as co-defendants).

Trial

On 17 May 2010, the trial began at Hove crown court of the seven activists for conspiring to cause criminal damage; the maximal sentence (for guilt) being five years.We caused damage to 'prevent war crimes'
''Bristol Evening Post'', 3 July 2010. They admitted they had sabotaged the factory – their defence team argued the damage was legally justified if it occurs while trying to prevent greater damage to other properties – in this case, homes in Gaza. The lawful excuse defence was invoked, according to which it can be lawful to commit an offence to prevent a more serious crime. Caroline Lucas, the MP for Brighton and the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, supported the activists and said that this was a case in which she considered non-violent direct action legitimate.

Stephen Shay, prosecuting, argued that the factory was so small that even if it had been supplying Israel, it would have made no difference to the war in Gaza.Judge: Brighton anti-Israel raider should get medal
''Jewish Chronicle'', 8 July 2010. EDO managing director Paul Hills denied in court that the company supplied components to Israel but said it did make parts for F-16 fighter planes. Judge George Bathurst-Norman said that, despite his denials, it was clear that there was enough evidence to the contrary and that the certificates required for arms export licenses were "not worth the paper they are written on," as they can be easily manipulated.

Summing-up

In his summing-up jury instructions, the judge suggested "you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time".

He highlighted the testimony by Caroline Lucas, MP ( Grn) for a Brighton seat that "all democratic paths had been exhausted" before the activists embarked on their action.Anti-Israel vandals acquitted for ‘lawful excuse’
Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 7 July 2010.

He suggested to the jury that one should be rewarded, stating that:

"People like Mr Osmond, who put themselves in harm's way to protect others..there may be much to be admired about people like that. Perhaps if he had done it in this country in the last war he would probably have received a George Medal."

He described the British and US governments as doing "nothing", however excluding that train of thought from relevance, telling jurors:
"You must put aside any feelings of being thoroughly ashamed of our government, of the American government and the United Nations and the EU in doing nothing about what was happening." He added that "It may be as you went through what I can only describe as horrific scenes, scenes of devastation to civilian population, scenes which one would rather have hoped to have disappeared with the Nazi regimes of the last war, you may have felt anger and been absolutely appalled by them, but you must put that emotion aside."

Verdicts

Five of the activists were found not guilty by the jury on 30 June. The remaining two, Osmond and Smith, were acquitted (by jury) two days later.

Reaction

The judge's comments were criticised by Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor who said: "This is not a great era for the British justice system. I assume that Sderot's children, who have lived under thousands of missiles for years, will be able to enlighten the judge as to the meaning of 'hell on earth.'" A statement form the Board of Deputies said: "The acquittal was clearly a result of the skewed narrative around Cast Lead, the judge's comments and the appearance of the local MP, who is known for her anti-Israel bias." The Zionist Federation released a statement calling for the government to censure Judge Bathurst-Norman.

The defendants' solicitor said: "We're delighted at the result. I think it sends a clear indication that sometimes direct action is the only option when all other avenues have failed."

On 15 July 2010 the ''Jewish Chronicle'' published a full transcript of the judge's final summing up of the evidence, and reported that the Zionist Federation were calling for a mistrial. Jonathan Hoffman, vice-chair of the latter, argued that "Judge Bathurst-Norman behaved more like the defence counsel than the neutral officer of the court that he was supposed to be. The role of a judge – far from advancing his own political agenda – is to clarify points of law to the lay members of the jury... iscomments reveal that he has an extreme anti-Israel agenda."

British journalist and social commentator Robin Shepherd called the case an "extraordinary moment in modern British legal history" and that:

“Bigotry against the Jewish state is now so entrenched in contemporary British society that juries have begun to acquit criminals merely if they can show that they acted against Israeli interests. No other defence is necessary.”

Regular ''Spectator'' columnist, Melanie Phillips sharply criticized the judge and suggested his politics and bias were factors in his statements to the jury. Phillips noted that he had once stated that "The trouble is, if you go on for political reasons undermining the public's faith in the judiciary, sooner or later you are heading for anarchy and... in due course for the equivalent of a police state. She noted that the judge had jailed a man for three months for beheading a statue of Margaret Thatcher, saying that "although many people sympathised with him, smashing up property deserved a custodial sentence."

In late July 2010, the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) began an investigation into the conduct. On 7 October he was formally reprimanded by the OJC, which stated that "An investigation found that a number of isobservations did not arise directly from the evidence at trial and could be seen as an expression of the judge’s personal views on a political question. This was an error."

The judge declined any comment on the matter.Judge reprimanded for alleged anti-Israel comments
by Tom Whitehead, ''Daily Telegraph'', 7 October 2010.

In response to this, the Smash EDO Campaign stated, "Judge George Bathurst-Norman has become subject of a concerted campaign of smears and defamation by a number of right-wing columnists, the Zionist Federation, and the Board of Deputies of British Jews on grounds that his summary of the evidence was 'anti-semitic' ... the charges of anti-semitism, which have been made against im are a grossly cynical attempt to undermine the significance of these acquittals of pro-Palestinian activists on evidence of Israeli war crimes. This evidence was not challenged by the Crown Prosecution Service. There is nothing anti-semitic in putting agreed evidence of Israeli war crimes to a jury."{{cite web
, url=http://www.smashedo.org.uk/#judge
, title=Criticising Israel's War Crimes is not Anti-Semitic
, work=smashedo.org.uk
, date = 7 October 2010 , accessdate=8 October 2010

See also

* ''EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign to Smash EDO and Others''

References

External links

Full summing-up; ''The Jewish Chronicle'' website article 35771

S
2010 in case law
2010 in British law
Brighton