The US security ‘police’ arrived. Lindis, who has been researching on this base for many years
immediately identified herself, said why she was there and that she was leaving – as she had done many times before. She was prevented from doing so and was thrown to the ground,
handcuffed, leg cuffed and subjected to a degrading and humiliating body search. She was put face down in the back of a US ‘pick-up’ truck and taken to the US Law and Enforcement
Center. Northampton Police took over an hour to arrive.
Lindis was arrested for ‘aggravated trespass’ (section 68), taken to Weston Favell police station and
eventually charged. She was held overnight, taken to court and remanded in custody to Holloway for one week. She was released on bail with strict conditions. Two
US lawyers and one British representative sat at the back of the court.
Simply put, the defence case was that the activities of USAF Croughton are illegal because they played/play a
crucial role in the issue of the invasion of Iraq (justiciability). Lindis’s legal team continually requested relevant documents from the CPS over the forthcoming months, including the
Instructions to the US security personnel when dealing with peaceful British citizens.
What followed revealed how the US authorities (referred to in court as the ‘third party’) were firmly in
control of this case and that the Crown Prosecutor (Peter Blair) went along with it. Documents that the Defence should have been given were denied and when finally wrung out of the US
authorities much of the selected information had been ‘blacked out’.
There were many hearings, two pre-trial reviews and when the case finally came to trial District Judge Freil was
forced to disqualify himself three days into the trial. He had seriously erred in law by allowing a hearing ‘in camera’ with three US personnel present (the ‘third party’) and no
lawyers from either side allowed in the court.
A retrial started on 8 December 2003 with two days set aside for legal arguments - exactly the same legal
ground as before being rehearsed. This time District Judge Richard Holland ruled against the Defence concerning the ‘justicability’ point.
The ‘third party’ had once again refused to allow the CPS to see the Instructions. This was a highly
unusual situation, as the CPS has to abide by the rules of the Criminal Proceedings and Investigation Act 1998. The CPS applied to the District Judge to allow the ‘third party’ to have a
hearing ‘in camera’ with no lawyers present. The Judge would then decide what documents could be disclosed. However this time the Judge ruled that Mr Blair and Lindis’s lawyer (Rasa
Hussein) could also be present. Late in the day the ‘third party’ finally decided that the Judge could have sight of the documents to read overnight.
When the hearing resumed the next day, Rasa Hussein strongly objected to this highly unusual process – however
under protest agreed to participate in the hearing. The District Judge said that he had been ‘troubled by some aspects’ of this most unusual process. Both the Defence and
Prosecution made submissions. Peter Blair (CPS) made great play of the fact that there was ‘nothing in the documents’ that would undermine his case. However the ‘third party’ had
never allowed him to see any of the documents.
Suddenly after lunch, Peter Blair announced that the ‘third party’ had after all decided to release certain parts
of the documents under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Rasa Hussein strongly objected to this, pointing out to the District Judge that the FOIA did not apply in English law.
He said that the Defendant was being denied a fair trial. He suggested that the CPS drop the case or invited the District Judge to.
At that point Peter Blair said that ‘within the last 30 seconds’ he was to be permitted to see the whole document
after there had been a number of calls to ‘higher authority’ by the ‘third party’ present in court. Peter Blair said that he had reviewed the documents and ‘nothing whatsoever’ in the
whole document’ would undermine his case. Only once did the District Judge comment that this process was overdue - two days into the retrial against Lindis.
The actual trial finally started and continued over the next two days with five US personnel giving evidence.
One of the American witnesses had been flown back to the UK from Guam. A key US witness was not called and another vital witness was said to have left the US Army and could not be
traced.
A further twist to this case occurred when the arresting officer (Northampton Police) giving evidence, referred
to his Sergeant being called to USAF Croughton. The Defence refused to allow Sergeant Terry’s statement to be read out and insisted that she be called. She could not be found
however despite having being warned to appear in court.
District Judge Holland was clearly troubled and agreed with Rasa Hussein that Lindis would not have a fair trial
if this witness did not appear in court.
Richard Holland (DJ) again made no comments or observations about the fact that apparently a US witness could be
flown over from Guam but that a local police officer, who lived in Northampton was not available in court and could not be found, despite having been warned to appear. Neither did he
comment about Sergeant Terry’s statement that had completely omitted to include key details concerning the officer’s crucial involvement in the incident.
Sergeant Terry was miraculously traced and appeared the next day. There was no apology, comment or reasons
given as to why she did not appear (to either the court or Defence). She was cross examined by Rasa Hussein and asked why she did not include in her very brief statement the fact that
she had been actually present in the Law and Enforcement Center at USAF Croughton. She had talked to the US security personnel on the night of the incident. She said that it was
not necessary to include these details in her statement, as any detail of conversations she had had would be ‘hearsay’ evidence. The DJ again asked no questions and made no comment.
Lindis then gave evidence. She said why she had gone to USAF Croughton to protest at the US/UK led invasion
of Iraq. She said that she knew there were Instructions that the US security personnel had to follow, when dealing with a British citizen and that is why she had constantly told them
that they must wait for the arrival of the local police. These rules and regulations had been seriously violated when Lindis had been thrown to the ground, handcuffed, leg cuffed and
been subjected to a degrading and humiliating search. Lindis gave evidence for about two hours after being crossed examined by Peter Blair.
Factual and legal submissions were made in the Defence summing up of the case. After two hours Richard
Holland (DJ) returned to give his ruling which was that Lindis was guilty of the offence of ‘aggravated trespass’ (section 68).
On 16 December 2003 all the parties returned to Northampton
Magistrates’ Court to hear the sentence. The CPS applied for £2,078 costs with a separate application for the cost of flying Senior Airman Van West from Guam – a total of £3,078.
When sentencing Lindis, the District Judge said that she was ‘always peaceful, non-aggressive and principled’.
There had been ‘no hostile’ act by Lindis. He said community service was not an option because of the ‘seriousness of this offence’. He ordered Lindis to pay costs of £200, £50
for being in breach of a conditional discharge and a fine of £100 for the offence (reminder: the CPS had applied for £3,078).
We have appealed Richard Holland’s decision to the High Court, London by way of ‘case stated’. No
further comment will be made as to the conduct of Peter Blair, Sarah Bennett and the CPS until the case is finally resolved.
This is a typical example of one of many cases brought against Lindis over the years concerning alleged offences
on US bases. A more detailed account can be found here -
"Croughton sentence ruling"
