Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases

It’s been a busy year on a number of fronts as we continue to fight to rein in the National Security Agency’s sweeping surveillance of innocent people. Since the 2013 leaks by former government contractor Edward Snowden, the secretive and powerful agency has been at the top of mind for those thinking about unconstitutional surveillance of innocent Americans and individuals abroad.

In 2016 the courts, lawmakers, and others continued to grapple with questions of how much we know about NSA surveillance.

Although the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act has a clause which allows peaceful assembly, the use of Dispersal Powers at Menwith Hill could have serious implications for the policing of other demonstrations. It was important to bring this to court to rule on whether the MDP could use Dispersal Orders.  It was also abundantly clear to Lindis from the start that the officers did not know what they were doing and erred many times in law.
Lindis defended herself. Throughout the lead up to the trial (14 September 2016) the Crown Prosecution Service caused many delays by ignoring Directions by the Magistrates to disclose documents and CCTV – see our last newsletter (No. 60, Summer 2016) for more details.  CCTV of both incidents was not forthcoming despite many requests and three applications for Intervention hearings.  The CCTV recordings were finally produced just before the start of the trial.
It was abundantly clear who was in charge of this case – the ‘third party’ (the American authorities) who Lindis had flagged up at the first hearing on 7 April.  Brandon Halstead (the US Judge Advocate from Menwith Hill) appeared at many of the hearings, instructing the Crown Prosecutor.   At trial he sat behind the Crown Prosecutor.  He brought copies of the edited CCTV which was edited, not dated or timed and still in American format.  Lindis was not permitted to have any copies.
She made an application for the CCTV to be produced in a credible format and for Mr Halstead to be cross examined to validate the CCTV. This was refused by the Magistrates. He said he could not appear in the witness box as he had to have permission from the US authorities.  He was in charge of the CCTV.  There was no MDP officer in court.  Lindis had requested from the start and on the day of the trial that the case be heard by a District Judge as there were complex points of law to be argued.  This was again denied.
The case ended a day early on a point of law.   The result was that the Magistrates agreed with Lindis Percy’s argument that Dispersal Orders cannot be used by the Ministry of Defence police (aided by North Yorkshire police) at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill.  The Prosecutor offered no evidence and Lindis Percy was awarded costs from Central Funds.
It was very important to challenge the use of Dispersal Orders by the MDP and to stop their abuse of power and misuse of the law. They made many mistakes in law and allowed the US authorities to lead on the case. The case established that the MDP cannot use Dispersal Orders again – at least at Menwith Hill. It would be foolish of the MDP to try this again at other US bases (or indeed any other protests). The Magistrates ruled that the area where the Tuesday demonstration takes place – the area restricted by the Dispersal Order – was private land. DOs can only be used in a public space. Lindis had argued that the land in question had restrictions namely the RAF Menwith Hill Byelaws 1995 (which have not been used for many years as they are suspect in law).

At the end of the trial, whether Lindis was found guilty or not, the MDP had wanted to apply for a Restraining Order on her – Not to go within 500 meters of Menwith Hill or to be found on MOD property. They did not apply.

We have heard evidence from Sgt Findlayson and submissions on behalf of the Crown and the defendant. We have also seen a still CCTV image of the area.
The basic factual scenario is that there has been a history of protests taking place for a number of years. These are under the control and supervision of the Ministry of Defence Police. There was an agreement as to how the protests would be conducted. There are byelaws in place restricting access to the area in question although they have not been enforced for some years. A decision was made to issue the defendant with a dispersal order on two separate occasions.
The prosecution accept that the land is owned by the Ministry of Defence. They assert that the area is a public place as there are no “physical” barriers in place stopping a member of the public driving or walking onto the area in front of the gates. The defendant asserts that while there are no physical barriers there are byelaws in place that restricts the class of person who can enter the area.
It was confirmed in the evidence of the Sgt that protestors had been arrested under the byelaws for entering the area. That would indicate that there has previously been an understanding that the area in question had restricted access. The officer accepted that the protests were under the control of the MOD Police.
Reliance was placed, by the prosecution, upon the fact that there is a police station to which there is access to the public. This is unmanned. The officer gave examples of this being used by delivery people etc to enable a decision to be made as to whether individuals are to be allowed “on station”. The officer said that a person entering the area would not be subject to challenge.
We have looked at the image from the CCTV and we can see that there are officers in the area, there is a wall at the front of the boundary with the main road. There is a fence with barbed wire. It is obvious that the area is a secure base. There are armed officers in the area. We conclude a member of the public would not immediately think that they were welcome to approach unless they had business at the base.
We have examined the byelaws and they refer to “lawful user” and individuals acting with permission of the relevant authorities. They make it an offence to enter “the applicable area”. Up until these allegations the protests had taken place with the agreement of the relevant authorities. We were told in evidence that the decision to use the dispersal notices was made on the day. We were told that there has been a sign indicating that byelaws were in place. We also heard that there is a sign in the area referring to the “Official Secrets Act”. None of this suggests that this is a public place. (Please note that ‘Sgt Findlayson’ should read ‘Sgt Finlinson’.)

See also
“New leaked files reveal more about NSA satellite eavesdropping“
from The Verge

To read or download:

Contributions by speakers and musicians

The People’s Declaration

There are more photos on our Facebook page

British activists have stormed an American military base in Yorkshire, continuing decades-long calls for its closure.

Just like the past three decades, peace activists from all over Britain gathered outside the Menwith Hill intelligence-gathering center on the outskirts of Harrogate over the weekend, the British daily Morning Star reported Monday.

“US military bases in Britain are jeopardizing the safety and security of the British public as they are threatening Russia and helping to cause carnage in the Middle East,” said Marcus Papadopoulos, an activist with the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB), which organized the event. ….

Read more: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/07/04/473555/Corbyn-UK-US-military-rally-Menwith-Hill

Demonstrators mark Independence From America Day

ACTIVISTS staged a peaceful demonstration outside a US military base in Yorkshire at the weekend demanding its closure while praising Jeremy Corbyn as Britain’s best hope for peace.

Menwith Hill, an intelligence-gathering centre on moorland outside Harrogate, is staffed by more than 1,000 US military and civilian personnel and guarded by British Ministry of Defence police.

Inside its boundaries are dozens of satellite dishes gathering military, political and economic material which is fed to the US.

Peace activists have been campaigning for its closure for more than three decades, staging a demonstration at the base each year on the Saturday closest to July 4 — US Independence Day.

This year the protest was dubbed Independence From America Day.

Former Labour MEP and European Parliament whip Michael McGowan made a powerful speech in defence of embattled party leader Mr Corbyn. …

Read more: https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-336d-Peace-activists-rally-at-US-military-base