Milan Rai has become the first person to be convicted of organising an unuthorised demonstration under the controversial Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Section 132 Designated Area law around Parliament Square.
Milan has been fined £350 with £150 costs i.e. £500. He does not intend to pay and will try to appeal against this conviction.
Lifestyle Extra has a good report:
Peace activist refuses to pay fineWednesday, 12th April 2006, 13:06
Category: Crime and PunishmentLIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - A peace activist convicted under new laws banning unauthorised demonstrations near the Houses of Parliament today (Wed) vowed to go to prison rather than pay a fine.
Milan Rai, 40, escaped a jail sentence at Bow Street magistrates' court and was slapped with a £350 and £150 costs after he refused to obtain police permission for his demonstration next to the Cenotaph in Whitehall near the gates to Downing Street last year.
Outside the court today, Rai said: "I have no intention of paying the fine.
[...]
"I am prepared to go to prison over this, I'm not scared. I guess people are afraid of the unknown, but I have already been to jail and it becomes less daunting every time."
[...]
Today district Judge Nicholas Evans said Rai, who faced up to 51 weeks' imprisonment under the controversial new law, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, had known the consequences of protesting without a permit.
He said: "Mr Rai was aware of the requirements of the Act. He had been in contact with the police in the events office at Charing Cross police station."He had been sent previously an information pack and had been fully advised as to the Act's requirements and the consequences that might flow from a failure to comply."
He added: "In a perfectly polite way, Mr Rai made it clear that he would not be seeking authorisation."
In court Rai's barrister Maya Sikand, from human rights campaign group Liberty, argued the charge of organising a demonstration in a restricted zone breached his human rights under EU law.
Sky News have a less detailed report.
But Mr Evans disagreed, stating the Act was legitimate and added: "The provisions are prescribed by law, they pursue a legitimate aim, are necessary in a democratic society, there is a pressing social need for them, and the interference was reasonable and proportionate."They are not incompatible with Mr Rai's convention rights."
[...]
Mr Evans reminded him that if it was not paid within 28 days an enforcement agency would be called in.
[...]
The Guardian also has a good report, as does the target="_bbc">BBC
Leave a comment