Six members of Lancaster University are to be granted a rehearing of their trespass conviction on the 13th March 2006.
A Support the George Fox Six campaign statement said yesterday: ‘In a verdict last September which shocked Human Rights organisations and university staff, the six were found guilty of Aggravated Trespass after a peaceful demonstration at their own university.
‘The “George Fox Six” are to have their case reheard at Lancaster Crown Court from 13th March 2006 following their conviction on the 30th September 2005.
‘At that time the court heard how protesters, dubbed the “George Fox Six”, interrupted a Corporate Venturing conference for a maximum of three minutes before being removed roughly by catering assistants.
‘Despite testimony supported by video evidence that they simply wanted to address the audience, hand out leaflets and then leave, allowing the conference to continue, and after four days of evidence the Judge’s decision rested on an amended dictionary definition of the word “disrupt”.
A packed courtroom heard how the University had ignored its own Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech – which is designed to avoid situations such as this one – for at least ten years.
‘Evidence was also heard about the University’s close relationship with controversial arms manufacturer BAE Systems and is actively pursuing closer research ties with industry without proper consultation and debate.
‘The six are supported by People & Planet, Liberty, the National Union of Students, the Association of University Teachers, the Council for Academic Freedom and Standards, Lancaster Trades Union Congress, Scientists for Global Responsibility and countless other academics, student unions and members of the public, who turned out at the trial to show their support of the six.’
Human Rights Organisation Liberty said at the time that they were ‘very concerned at this result.
‘The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our democracy, as is freedom of speech.
‘Both have been under attack recently, not least at the New Labour Convention, and we fear verdicts such as this will only hasten their demise.’
In a joint statement, the George Fox Six said: ‘We remain proud of what we did and we still believe that the moral victory is ours.
‘As far as we and our supporters are concerned, it has been the university’s ethics that were and are on trial, and again and again they are being found guilty.’
Lancaster University Students Union (LUSU) said it was ‘dismayed with the outcome of the George Fox Six case.
‘Students are not trespassers on their own university grounds and they have the right to voice alternative and critical views.
‘We are taught this in our degrees and the result of the case shows that Lancaster University is not willing to put into practice what it teaches.
‘Forfeiting its rich history of radical student protest, Lancaster University has silenced student voices on its campus.
‘Students everywhere have a right to protest and LUSU will continue to speak out against this terrible miscarriage of justice.’
The George Fox 6 appealed the verdict of ‘Guilty of momentarily disrupting a conference’ handed down by District Judge Peter Ward on the 30th September 2005.
The appeal will take the form of a rehearing of the evidence, possibly including some new evidence, before a new judge.
The six are accused of ‘Aggravated Trespass’ which is a criminal offence under the 1994 Criminal Justice Act and is defined as trespass ‘with intent to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt’.
This carries a maximum sentence of three months imprisonment.
But trespass is a civil offence which means that the police need the university’s approval to press charges, since only they can decide if the protesters were trespassing.
Lancaster University’s Registrar of Meetings is obliged to consult a committee made up of University officers and the Student Union President about controversial meetings or when national figures are attending.
A Freedom of Information request to the University has revealed that this committee has not met in the last ten years.
The conference was not registered with the Registrar of Meetings, which ensured that it did not meet the University’s legal requirements.
In order to comply with the Code of Practice, details of meetings, including a list of speakers should be advertised at least 14 days in advance.
