ATTORNEY GENERAL TORPEDOES WAR CRIMES DEFENCE IN HIGH COURT; PROTESTERS DEFIANT

The defendants argued that EDO MBM, a Brighton arms manufacturer was guilty of offences under the ICC Act through its supply of weapons to conflicts in Iraq and Palestine.

The Attorney Generals barrister argued that no war crimes had been commited. He also argued for a more stringent interpretation of the already draconian Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which is being used to impose a collective punishment on all protesters who wish to demonstrate outside the Brighton arms factory. The Attorney General's interpretation was rejected by Judge Wallace.

Andrew Beckett, press spokesman for Smash EDO, said 'the ruling was a result of the interevention of the Attorney General, it was a clear attempt to stifle debate in the courts about war crimes committed by the UK government in Iraq. However, the evidence of war crimes will still be used in the court case and we will continue to protest at EDO MBM until they cease supplying weapons to be used against civilians'

Copies of the judgement of Judge Wallace are available on request.

Notes for Journalists

Brighton & Hove is a UN Peace Messenger City

The injunction referred to was served under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act (originally designed to protect women from stalkers) and is the first of its kind directed at activists outside of the animal rights movement. Crucially it is a civil injunction but carries criminal penalties. It affects anyone deemed to be a protestor. Initially EDO/MBM requested a large "exclusion zone" comprising the whole of Home Farm Industrial Estate.

They and Sussex police also wanted to limit demonstrations to two and a half hours, with less thanten people who had to be silent. Judge Gross refusedto impose these conditions at the initial hearing of an interim injunction, which was put in place in the period before the full trial to be heard at the High court in London from November 21st. In his summing up he said, "The right to freedom of _expression is jealously guarded in English law" and consequently refused to impose the requested limits on size, timing or noise made at demonstrations. He also said that he doubted that protesters were 'stalking' employees of EDO MBM.

EDO MBM Technologies Ltd are the sole UK subsidiary of huge U.S arms conglomerate EDO Corp, which was recently named No. 10 in the Forbes list of 100 fastest growing companies. They supply bomb release mechanisms to the US and UK armed forces amongstothers. They supply crucial components for Raytheon's Paveway guided bomb system, widely used in the "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq.

EDO also withdrew a threatened libel action against Indymedia over being named as "warmongers".

Lawson-Cruttenden & Co
Solicitors firm working for EDO have been instrumental in developing the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 from a measure designed to safeguard individuals to a corporate charter to make inconvenient protest illegal. Theyhave pioneered to use of injunctions to create large "exclusion zones". They have secured numerous injunctions against anti-vivisection and anti-GM protestors.

Campaign against EDO MBM
People involved in the anti-EDO campaign include, but are not limited to: local residents, the Brighton Quakers, peace activists, anti-capitalists, Palestine Solidarity groups, human rights groups, trade unionists, academics and students. The campaign started in August 2004 with a peace camp. It's avowed aim is to expose EDO MBM and their complicity in war crimes and to remove them from Brighton.

back to top