Dear Mr Justice Hooper,

I should like to thank you for the recognition, expressed in your judgment of July 14th, that the "many women who have been involved in the protest against the base over many years honestly believe that the base is being used for unlawful and/or undesirable activities" and that "their concerns are shared by others".

After 18 months before the High Court, following a year in preparation, and at huge cost, exactly what has the County Council achieved? It has obtained an undertaking by one woman (me) that I will abide by the conditions specified in the ruling: namely that the women's protest may consist of a trailer parked in the lay-by during the daylight hours and removed at night, and that it should not be garish, nor have any slogans painted on it which would be a distraction for motorists on the A59 highway.

The conditions do not specify WHERE I may park the trailer, only that it must be removed from the lay-by. The County Council cannot possibly object to my plan to have a mobile, white "golf-ball" radome, as another golf-ball in the vicinity of Menwith Hill would not make a significant difference. There already exist 27 (soon to be 29). A drably-dressed dummy peace-woman, Flossie Mintballs, would be displayed "lifting the lid" on the "golf-ball". This would eliminate the necessity for explanatory slogans.

Can your judgment affect a completely different group of "persons unknown" inhabiting an ani-war settlement outside Menwith Hill?

On July 14th, in the High Court hearing, your lordship acknowledged that my acceptance of the conditions of the Order would not prejudice my right to appeal against your judgment. I was understood that I would be seeking to appeal this judgment, and also that of June 22nd 1998, the imposition of an injunction to prevent me residing at night on the highway verges within a radius of approximately 5 miles round Menwith Hill.

The grounds for such an appeal would be that there HAS been an abuse of court process, despite your dismissal (pages 4/5 of the judgment), i.e. that the decision to evict the peace camp was made on 23rd September 1996 at a meeting held between Squadron Leader "Ted" Sumner, "RAF Commander" (i.e. liaison officer for the US National Security Agency) and "Mike" Masterman, Head of Environmental Management for the NYCC.

1. The only authority with power to evict the Women's Peace Camp is the NYCC Highways Authority, a section of the Environmental Management directorate.
2. Mike Masterman was presented with untrue allegations about the women's activities at the base (the letter from the Senior Police Officer at Menwith Hill to Squ. Ldr. Sumner dated 12th Sept. 1996).
3. The documents consisting of correspondence with/from the Menwith Hill Station and the County Council were witheld from the defendants, although the list of documents originally submitted by NYCC in February 1998 was accompanied by a statement that "NEITHER THE PLAINTIFF NOR ITS SOLICITOR NOR ANY PERSON ON ITS BEHALF, HAS NOW, OR EVER HAD, IN HIS POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR POWER ANY DOCUMENT OF ANY DESCRIPTION WHATEVER RELATING TO ANY MATTER IN QUESTION IN THIS ACTION, OTHER THAN THE DOCUMENTS ENUMERATED IN SCHEDULES 1 AND 2 HEREOF" (my capitals).
4. It was only as a result of the evidence of the existence of these letters emerging from my cross-examination of the Maintenance Manager for the Highways Authority, Mr A. W. Burns, that discovery was made on the Order of yuor lordship.
5. It was only after my affidavit analysing the said correspondence had been entered that the September 12th letter from the Senior Ministry of Defence Police Officer at Menwith Hill was discovered by the NYCC. Your lordship ruled that my written submission be tendered by February 26th; the NYCC produced the said letter on March 5th. Although I was permitted to comment on it, my whole argument was thrown out of sequence.
6. In order to succeed at appeal I should require the sworn testimony of Squ. Ldr. Sumner to corroborate the documentary evidence. Unfortunately he is not available. He has been transferred to KUWAIT, from which place it would be impossible for me to pay his witness-summons expenses. From an "inside source" I have it on authority that Squ. Ldr. Sumner has been transferred "because he's in legal hot water with you (i.e. the Women's Peace Camp women)". I realise that this is hearsay evidence and not acceptable in court.

As things stand at the moment, I shall not be going to appeal.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Lee

P.S. I, too, agree that Mr Eric Owens is a man of total integrity. I believe that the NYCC Environment Management Department's Highways Authority and the Legal Department contrived to keep counsel in ignorance of the "mission" documents.

See Yorkshire CND Menwith Hill website