A Belfast judge has found three anti-genocide activists not guilty of criminal damage to Israeli products in a Sainsburys supermarket. The prosecutor offered no evidence against them.
Martin Rafferty, Eoin Davey and Yasmary Perdomo were accused of putting BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) stickers on Sodastream products. All had denied the charge. The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) told the court it was making no case and claimed this was because of “new information or evidence”. However, it still dragged the trio through a lengthy and stressful court process, which their lawyers condemned after the verdict:
[The PPS] made every attempt to secure a conviction – even though there was literally no evidence of any alleged damage.
It is an injustice that our clients had to come to court multiple times since last June before the PPS offered ‘no evidence’ this morning. We urge the PPS to withdraw similar cases which have been brought against other BDS activists.
Solicitor Aiden Carlin said there had been thirteen separate hearings.
However, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) offered no evidence against the three defendants.
They were formally acquitted after District Judge Anne Marshall dismissed the case.
Speaking outside court, their legal representative hailed it as a “spectacular” outcome.
BDS activists face deja vu all over again
That PPS were pursuing the case until today, then presenting no evidence, is even more remarkable than it seems at first glance. This is the second time in just three months that the three have been acquitted on the same charge of putting stickers on Sodastream products.
Belfast magistrates dismissed those charges against them last October. His solicitor Carlin said in that case that the prosecution had made “every effort” in a “case that should never have been brought”:
In that first case, the judge allowed one witness to give evidence from behind a screen to avoid “intimidation”. Another’s statement was allowed to stand in evidence even though the witness refused three times to come to court. The judge still threw out the charges, yet the prosecutor allowed the second case to drag on – and then presented no evidence at all.
In a self-exculpatory statement, the PPS claimed today that it has:
a general duty to keep prosecution decisions under consideration and take into account any change in circumstances that occurs as the case proceeds.
Where new information or evidence becomes available it is considered along with all the existing information and evidence in the case and the test for prosecution applied, as happened in this case.
Following a change in the evidence available in this case, it was determined that the test for prosecution was no longer met.
Yet it seems it had learned absolutely nothing from the failure of its first prosecution of the BDS activists.
Deranged and drawn-out prosecutions to protect Israeli interests. Where have we heard that before?
Featured image via FaceBook/Carlin Solicitors Ltd
By Skwawkbox
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
uh, did cromwell not beat the genius of the english common law into them?