Is protesting legal right now,or not? Yes
However you need to know HOW it is legal before you can just accept it, you do have to fight the Police right now for your rights and not only do you have to fight for your rights, you need to fight the courts for your rights. The Courts clearly do NOT want protesters to know that they have rights that are being violated at every single protest.
Freeman or Common Law?
The Common Law defence of Self Defence does apply and can be pleaded at trial. The effect is that it reverses the burden of proof against the CPS to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that your actions in self defence were reasonable. Reasonable force can be used.
There are no valid legal arguments for the freeman angle in criminal cases.
Legally, yes. Practically, it is not as simple as that. Article 11 & 10 of the Human Rights Act protect the Freedom of Assembly and the Freedom of Expression. There is no requirement to have a blue press pass to enjoy these freedoms. This is a red herring introduced by Police to knock you off guard. It is clearly working too. THERE IS NO LEGAL OBLIGAITON TO HAVE A BLUE PRESS PASS. Why? Because the Human Rights Act prevails over the Coronavirus Regulations and the Coronavirus Act and if there is a conflict, it wins. Since leaving Europe on 1st January 2021, the supremacy of the EC Council is in question but at this time, it is not known if there are any changes to the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 so at this point, we assume it has not changed as there is no change known to the current legislation.
Are they conditional rights?
Yes they are but the Police are using them with the opposite effect to what they are saying. Yes they are conditional, they are NOT absolute rights to assemble and associate HOWEVER, the conditions are not on the citizen in any way. The conditions are on the state to prove that any curtailment of these rights are lawful, proportionate and necessary. This is where the legal argument lies and the burden of proof is on the state to satisfy these requirements.
If you are protesting and do not realise who has the burden of proof, and why, you are likely to be locked up. The Police are challenging your knowledge. If you don’t tell them that the state has the obligation to prove that these rules in force are lawful, proportionate and necessary then you are likely to be arrested because that Police Officer has tested your knowledge of your rights and you failed. Arrest is sure to follow for failing to know your rights. Yes, its wrong but if you know who has the burden, the Police are less likely to arrest. In reality, at the moment, they are likely to do what they want anyway and leave the awkward argument to you in court.
My friend has been to court and tried to argue it but lost. Why?
The problem with the Human Rights violations is they need to be brought up in the 1st hearing, NOT at trial. If you have court paperwork, the first hearing is often advertised to you that you do not need to attend and that by pleading by post is fine because “YOU DO NOT NEED TO ATTEND”.
This is because it is the only opportunity to make an application under Article 11 & 10 of the Human Rights Act. If they make it sound like you do not have to attend and all you have to do is fill in this plea by post, great…you don’t have to go, right?
Wrong. Imagine a theatre stage that’s empty of people and props. Totally empty stage. That’s the court room. Nothing to see here right? Wrong. If you go over to that back right corner, behind that curtain, there is a secret door that you don’t know is there until you are told. This door opens into a room and if you raise Human Rights as a legal issue, you can effectively open that door, throw in a grenade and close the door again. The Police, government officials and Sadiq Khan are all sat in there. All you have to do… is know about that door… and have your grenade.
That first hearing is the only time you can raise a Human Rights Claim. Magistrates courts do not have jurisdiction to hear Human Rights issues so if you go to that hearing, that they do not expect you to turn up to, you present your application and not only is your trial suspended until this little issue is fixed, you now have an argument you did not have before. Human Rights issues are not heard at trial because you should have raised them at the first hearing. Ignorance is no defence to the law Mr Protester! You are likely to be found guilty on the Coronavirus Act/Regulations because you didn’t raise the Human Rights issue when you needed to! If you fail to raise Human Rights at the first hearing and go to trial, you can expect to lose and a hefty fine that it totally avoidable in the first instance…but you need to know about that stage door.
Now you know it’s there. The state does not WANT you to know about this stage door and will do anything to stop you raising it. They will lose paperwork, delay you making the application by distraction techniques…anything possible to stop you claiming it. All you have to do is claim your rights have been violated and push the Magistrates Court out of its Jurisdiction.
I got my trial delayed for a new hearing in the higher court. Now what?
Now the burden of proof is on the state to prove that the actions of the officer in arresting you was lawful. The state must show that their law is lawful, proportionate and necessary.
Just by being in the system causes a headache for the Judiciary. They do NOT want a load of protesters arguing for the state to prove that there actually IS a nasty bug killing people. I have not seen ANY evidence that there is a nasty bug killing people so let the state prove it exists beyond all reasonable doubt. It is their burden. They also need to prove the rules are proportionate. We all know if there really is a nasty bug killing people, it only affects the elderly and the infirm. There is no need to force the whole country into face diapers, face shields and injections. Only hospitals, care homes and people with breathing issues perhaps but not the whole country. The whole argument unravels with this one point.
The state also must show that it is lawful. You may need a barrister for this point if the other two points fail. The recent case of R v Piers Corbyn did not test the above three points and Piers was given an Absolute Discharge because of the time he spent in jail. The trial Judge affirmed the consequent by saying “the regulations of the state are necessary because of the pandemic”. This point has not been tested and the Judge was wrong to affirm the consequent…but was he? Corbyn’s counsel did not raise this as a legal point. He only raised it in relation to the grounds for arrest. Obviously the grounds for arrest are there, Piers did break the rules. However, the Corbyn case did NOT challenge the legality of the rules themselves, only the grounds for the arrest of Corbyn. This is where the legal argument really lays.
Can I trust the law will be fair?
Short answer, no. The law is acting tyrannical at the moment and the courts are doing everything possible to stop anyone that has been arrested at protests and for doing activism from claiming Human Rights. Check this article out of Robin Campbell from Bristol, https://thereallywokeshow.com/2021/01/08/has-the-administration-of-justice-been-suspended-without-us-being-told/
He tried to raise his Human Rights correctly but the Judge unlawfully refused to hear his application. Mr Campbell is appealing the Judges decision to convict him because the Judge argued with him so much that one can only assume he failed to make an adequate application under Human Rights. Don’t let this happen to you, at first hearing, you simply confirm your name, your address, your plea and don’t get distracted. Your only one task to complete your Human Rights Application. The Judge will try and derail you so that you are distracted. The judiciary cannot have protesters claiming Human Rights, it jeopardises their tyranny.
I have been arrested and bailed and need someone to talk to about my arrest but I don’t have any money.
Email us. We can put you in touch with people that can get you through this for free provided you have actually been charged and are due to appear in court but that first hearing has not passed.