Press release: for immediate use: 21st July 2004


COURT OF APPEAL RULES ON FAIRFORD DEFENCE:
MENTION OF IRAQ WAR “NOT NECESSARY”


At the end of June, the Court of Appeal heard
pre-trial submissions from both Crown and defence
lawyers in the cases of the five peace activists
who undertook to damage US-owned military hardware
at the air base at Fairford, Gloucestershire, in
the weeks before the Iraq war. Paul Milling and
Margaret Jones disabled support vehicles used to
supply bombs and fuel to B-52 bombers. In two
further separate incidents, Philip Pritchard and Toby
Olditch, and Josh Richards, were arrested while
on their way to disable a plane.


The main point at issue:  the defendants’ right
to argue that they carried out their actions to
resist an illegal war.


This morning the Appeal Court judges hearing the
appeal - Lord Justice La tham, Mr. Justice Gibbs
and Judge Richard Brown - ruled it is “not
necessary” to consider the legality of the war in Iraq,
for the accused to have a defence in law. There
is no need, the judges say, even to debate whether
an English court has the right to rule on
government policy in the case. The judges find no
“established rule” which defines the international
crime of aggression by a government as being also a
crime in English law. So the accused are unable to
claim “preventing the crime of aggression” as the
basis of their defence. 


At trial, the defendants will still be able to
rely on the defence of “lawful excuse.” They will
be able to argue from the Criminal Damage Act of
1971 that, in damaging support vehicles for B-52
bombers, or in breaking into Fairford air base to
try and disable a plane, they were defending a
“property, right or interest,” that they honestly
believed was in need o f protection. 


Since this defence under the Criminal Damage Act
does not specify whether the action a defendant
seeks to prevent must something illegal, the
Appeal Court judges again found it possible to avoid
considering the possible unlawfulness of the Iraq
war.


Three weeks ago, at the start of the hearing that
led to today’s ruling, a four-page witness
statement was submitted to the Appeal Court by Sir
Michael Jay, head of the Diplomatic Service. In the
statement, Sir Michael said he had been instructed
by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to warn
that for a UK court to express any opinion on the
legality of the Iraq war would have negative
effects on UK foreign relations. Any such ruling would,
Sir Michael wrote, “provide encouragement” to
terrorists, “weaken the Government’s hand in its
negotiations with other states,” and “tend to
undermine the new Iraqi Interim Government.”


In view of this warning from the highest levels
of government, today’s Court of Appeal judgement
comes as no surprise.  Defendants will now discuss
with their lawyers whether they have grounds to
for a further appeal, to the House of Lords. 


In the Court of Appeal hearing, Paul Milling and
Margaret Jones were represented by James Lewis
QC, and Josh Richards by Keir Starmer QC. 
Professor Vaughan Lowe represented Philip Pritchard and
Toby Olditch.


More information: Louise James or Daniel Bonich,
(Solicitors, Stokoe Partnership)   Tel. 0208 – 558- 8884

Or Hugo Charlton, barrister for Josh Richards:
Tel.  07990-580 600