Chris Nineham’s violent arrest
A judge threw out a “no case to answer” defence without giving his reasons as the trial of two leaders of Britain’s Palestine solidarity movement returned to court this week.
District Judge Daniel Sternberg denied the application by defence barrister Mark Summers KC on behalf of Stop the War Coalition vice-chair Chris Nineham and Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Ben Jamal.
He gave no reasons for dismissing it as the trial resumed at Westminster magistrates’ court following a week-long break given to the prosecution to prepare its response to the application.
Mr Summers had just 15 minutes to make his 12-point argument to support the application.
He referred to the conditions imposed by the police to prevent the Palestine coalition marching from or to the BBC in Portland Place and confining the 18 January 2025 demonstration to a static protest.
Mark Summers argued that the judge had a duty to consider the legality of the restrictions imposed by Met Commander Adam Slonecki under principles of public law.
He highlighted that the Court of Appeal had already ruled in a previous case that imposing conditions on the basis of “more than minor” disruption was unlawful, which he said nullified the case.
In addition, the law did not provide for the police to impose conditions to be placed on demonstrations based on the concept of “cumulative disruption”.
Mr Summers insisted that to argue the conditions were still a necessity on the assessments made by Commander Slonecki that the march presented the risk of “significant disruption” was a “gross legal error”.
He said that Slonecki did not correctly apply a balance of rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, adding that the Crown’s case was effectively that human rights are “irrelevant”.
“If that’s the position you take and you are prepared to follow the Crown in dismissing human rights, then all I can say is bon voyage and I’ll see you in the High Court,” Mr Summers told the judge.
In dismissing the defence’s arguments, the judge noted that he was not obliged in a magistrates’ court to give his reasons.
When the court moved to closing statements from the prosecution and defence, Mr Summers said he would not call any defence witnesses and that the Crown case was “hopeless”.
Ludicrous invitation to criminalise
Concluding the defence case on the second and final day of the resumed trial, Mark Summers called the Crown’s case against Chris and Ben a “ludicrous invitation to criminalise legitimate protected political speech about the misuse of state power against people’s civil liberties”.
He described Chris and Ben’s actions in the run up to the 18 January Palestine protest as nothing more than those of “civic organisations engaging in political campaigning in a democracy”.
He noted that conditions imposed by the Met had created widespread public criticism which, on previous marches, had led to compromise. These included a march that formed up near Regent Street and went to the Israeli Embassy, which the police tried to prevent from setting off until two hours later than the originally advertised time, but eventually relented. But this time (18 Jan) the police refused.
The court heard that letters in support of the protest going to the BBC, signed by members of Jewish organisations, Holocaust survivors, journalists, judges, politicians and others were all ignored.
Mr Summers emphasised that Mr Jamal and Mr Nineham were both highly respected movement leaders with an extraordinary record of managing some of the biggest demonstrations ever seen in this country.
He said: “Why would they suddenly decide to defy police conditions, jeopardising future marches, their reputations, and political support?”.
Officers in the control room and on the ground were in complete ignorance of the plan for a “flower delegation” to walk towards the BBC to lay flowers, even though it had been announced by Ben Jamal from the stage.
The plan, clearly explained by Ben, was that, if stopped by police, the delegation would lay the flowers at their feet.
This Mr Summers said was a “sensible, symbolic proposal” and could only have succeeded with police permission.
He said: “From beginning to end, events had been a humourless Ealing comedy. At no point did either side understand the intentions of the other.”
At the police cordons the delegation believed they had been permitted to walk through police lines.
In footage from a police body-worn camera, not previously disclosed by the prosecution, an officer was heard telling the delegation: “You’ve got to filter through. Filter, filter, filter. Take your time getting through.”
Mr Summers asked: “Why would it occur to them [the delegation] that they were being instructed by the police to do something unlawful?”
On the incitement charge against Ben, Mr Summers said it was “utterly hopeless” as he was “engaged in the very opposite of inciting people into a criminal breach of the conditions imposed by the police”.
He was seeking to channel it into a “powerful and lawful act of political expression and symbolism”.
And after the “awful arrest” of Chris Nineham, what did Ben do? He actively picked up a loudhailer, calmed the crowd and got them to disperse.
The judge has reserved judgement until 1 April.