AN ANTI-OLYMPICS campaigner appeared in court today charged with criminal damage and possession of a bladed article.
Edward Hill, 62, of Foyle Road, Blackheath, pleaded not guilty to the charges at Woolwich Magistrates Court and opted to be tried by jury at Crown Court.
The activist is accused of using a kitchen knife to cut feather markers showing where equestrian events are due to take place at Greenwich Park during the London 2012 Olympic Games.
He is also alleged to have used the knife to dig into the ground in the royal park on September 23 this year.
Dave Townsend, for the Prosecution told magistrates: “This is our first anti-Olympics case.”
Mr Hill, who appeared without representation, was told that the magistrates could deal with the case.
But the defendant, who is a local artist and member of Transition Westcombe, opted for a jury trial at Woolwich Crown Court despite being warned that costs of £1,500 could be payable if convicted.
He was granted unconditional bail pending his next appearance at Woolwich Magistrates Court next month for committal to Crown Court.
Under which Act or Acts was this prosecution started? As these “feather markers” must cost all of 5p each, the damage was de minimis, and – as I have known Mr Hill personally for about 13 years – I think that Mr Hill honestly and reasonably believed that he was doing something to protect the Park from despoilation; the Royal Parks’ decision to prosecute – instead of, say, issuing a warning and a Fixed Penalty Notice – looks like panic: a huge over-reaction and a gift to opponents of holding the equestrian events in the Park.
This might be a good example of the damage – to rare, endangered acid grassland
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenwich_park/5059231573/
– that Ed Hill was trying to prevent.
This destruction of the acid grasslands was caused by LOCOG/The Royal Parks.
Have you known My Hill all your life?
Mr Hill….
Indigo
Just so the process is clear to all, neither the Royal Parks nor the police have the power to authorise charges against anyone for this type of offence. The information is laid before the CPS who decide one whether or not to charge and pursue a case.
The two offences charged in this matter appear to be criminal damage and possessing a pointed and bladed article in a public place.
The first, criminal damage, in essence means that the accused has caused damage to property belonging to another. Damage does not have to be permanent and can include land (think of, for example, someone dumping waste products on your front lawn). So, in this instance, the CPS have decided that by placing stakes in the grass within the park constitutes damage. In my humble opinion they are on shaky, excuse the pun, ground.
The second matter is more straight forward. It is an offence to posses a pointed or bladed article in a public place. Full stop. The size of the item, a knife in this instance, is immaterial. There are only 4 lawful excuses to posses such an item in public and it would appear from the article that Mr Hill couldn’t use any of them (had lawful authority – ie, permission from the parks to do whatever he was up to?, the item was part of a national dress (think Sgian Dubh worn by a Scotsman in the top of a long sock), was for work or lastly religious reasons).
I’m only assisting with the legal points and don’t express an opinion, per se, on the whole issue. However, suffice to say that I think Mr Hill was correct to go for a jury trial in this matter and hope that the ‘twelve good men and true’ see common sense!
Oh, just a thought.
Why doesn’t someone organise a ‘Stake Out’? A little bit of anti establishment passive resistance whereby lots of people go in to the park with (non pointed) stakes and plant them in the ground. If enough people go not everyone could get arrested – hopefully – and if the parks allow it then it would be both good PR for NOGOE and a possible defence for Mr Hill (why have the parks taken no action in this matter but given statements supporting a prosecution in another).
I fully support the rule of law but also the right to demonstrate when something is a bit of an ass!
Does anyone else feel that Dave Townsend’s (of the Crown Prosecution Service, find him on LinkedIn) comment was a bit off-colour?
“Dave Townsend, for the Prosecution told magistrates: ‘This is our first anti-Olympics case.’”
As if rubbing his hands together eagerly anticipating the prospect of more.
It is probably inaccurate, too, to say that this is an “anti-Olympics case”. Most of the people who want the equestrian events moved to a more appropriate venue, such as Windsor, are not “anti-Olympics”. Just anti- having the finest Baroque landscape in England, rare acid grasslands, ancient trees and important archaeology damaged or destroyed for the sake of two hours of an elite sport.
The case has been dropped. Appears that they (whoever is in charge) don’t want the publicity and scrutiny – I’m told they don’t yet actually have permission to have undertaken these works in the parks. Therefore what was done cannot be illegal.
Noyb, yes, there’s a bit more on that here:
http://www.greenwich.co.uk/news/04301-first-anti-olympics-case-dropped-by-cps/
Asinine burocrats with school playground mentality. Lord protect us from these incompetents … beggars credulity. btw ‘Indigo’the track line markers resemble shuttlecocks, and I am now paranoid as to whether my comb is legal to carry in a public place without a sheath, warning sign, and tin foil hat with flashing hazard lamp. Just one other small point of personal interest. Anyone yet determined if the Monsanto agri-chemical used to raise lusty soft turf on the course is any good for restoring human hair loss? I might try rubbing my head with it, or will it make it fall off?