Saturday 5 September 2009

G20 'Armoured Car 11' Deny Charges



Eleven protesters arrested for allegedly driving an armoured car into the City of London while dressed as police during the G20 mass protest earlier this year all pleaded not guilty when they appeared in court.

All the defendants are charged with impersonating a special constable or member of a police force on April 1, with intent to deceive, contrary to Section 90 (1) of the Police Act 1996.

They are each also charged with wearing an article of police uniform including NATO helmets and blue overalls so nearing that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive contrary to Section 90 (2) of the Police Act 1996.

They were allegedly part of a group of G20 activists stopped near the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The six-wheel Alvis Saracen, (pictured above) a model once used by the British Army in Northern Ireland, was emblazoned with the word 'Riot' and police-style black and white chequered livery.

They are: Jessica Barter, 19, of St. Andrew’s Road, Plaistow; Leah Borromeo, 30, of Sprules Road, Brockley; Stephen Gibbens, 21, of Allington Circle, Kingsmead, Milton Keynes; Paul Hardcastle, 23, of Bellenden Road, Peckham; Mohammed Hayder, 25, of Hooke House, Gernon Road, Bow.

Stephen Jewkes, 28, of Bellenden Road, Peckham; Suzan Keen, 41, of Parkside Estate, Rutland Road, Homerton; David Parkhouse, 22, of Homerton High Street, Homerton; Robin Priestley, 32, of  Morrison Buildings North, Commercial Road, Stepney; Rebecca Walpole, 21, of Seaforth Road, Aberdeen and David Vannen, 38, of Upper Highway, Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire.

They all pleaded not guilty to both counts at City of London Magistrates’ Court and have been bailed to appear on February 8 for a four-day trial before a District Judge at City of Westminster Magistrates Court.


7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think it might be wise to remove people's building names/street names and just have it as local areas.

Editor said...

fair point, but the tradition of reporting is to always to publish the address - in fact the absence of a full address may leave critics feeling the site lacks thoroughness.
if you view your local newspapers etc..you will always find the street names mentioned.
in fact, i think i am quite fair by not including their door numbers!

Editor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

No, the tradition is not to post the full address. Publishing the full address of chergees is at the very least frowned upon by reporters and news agencies. See the same story on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8236468.stm

Don't forget that these people have only been charged with offences. This does not mean they are guilty. In the English court one is innocent until found guilty.

What you have done here is to make innocent people's names and addresses available to all and sundry based on the fact that they have merely been charged with offences.

Editor said...

yes people's names and addresses have been made available to all and sundry, but that has always been the case when people are charged and no contempt of court order has been made.
i think the bbc's story was aimed at a national audience so specific street names would mean little to somebody on the other side of the country.
my coverage, i believe, is more thorough and the local street addresses are relevant to a local audience.
anyway we do have a long tradition of identifying suspects before trial.
look at all the people accused of unpleasant sex offences and even murders who have been identified only to be acquitted.
i think it is a justifiable price to pay for an open criminal justice system.
i welcome your comments and thank-you for posting on square mile news.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you think it's a fair price to pay. Perhaps that's because you've never had to pay that price, but are happy to exact it. If you were wrongly accused of rape, would you mind if I posted your name and address on the internet, or would you feel a little bit upset? Would you be happy for people in your street to know you'd been charged with rape? Or would you find that a bit upsetting? Despite knowing you were innocent?

Anyway, there's more to the story. It seems the accused may well have the last laugh:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6850901.ece

bentham said...

'G20 protesters sue Met Police after charges dropped'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8487213.stm