There is NO REASON why SCOTLAND should follow suit with England in oppression of human rights.  Political context and police behaviour differ from those down south and we are hopeful that legal decisions will also demonstrate similar independent thought.  

On Thursday July 9, Defend Our Juries arrestees in Scotland have their first hearing in the High Court via a pre-trial option for criminal cases available in Scotland called a Diet of Debate. This will be a test case challenging all our arrests under the Terrorism Act, arguing that this breached our human rights. 

This first hearing in the High Court is ‘procedural’ but important. It will decide when and how we proceed to the Diet of Debate.

Unfortunately, every procedure is costly, a factor those seeking to criminalise democratic protest are no doubt keeping their fingers crossed will price us out. Let’s prove them wrong.

In Scotland, Defend Our Juries need help to cover legal fees of £27,000 incurred so far. Why? The Diet of Debate has now been referred to the High Court. To keep it in the running as a possible line of defence for all of us charged under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, we need to pay these legal fees.

The Diet of Debate will argue that arrests in Scotland breached our human rights and will lay down a line in the sand stating that it is not a crime, let alone a crime under Terrorism Act, to peacefully protest in Scotland. Our cases, hopefully, will be dropped soon if the Court of Appeal upholds the Judicial Review judgment which clarified that the proscription of Palestine Action is, and always was, unlawful. However, we would till be left with this legal fees bill.

Should the Diet of Debate be needed, current bills must first be resolved. The Debate will incur further costs. The costs escalated after the Lord Advocate made a motion to refer the case to the High Court. Procedures and requests from the Lord Advocate's lawyers, the Advocate General for Scotland's lawyers and a Sheriff made ours an unusual and costly process given the unprecedented nature of the charges. 

Why separate costs in Scotland? In Scotland, we decided to challenge the premise on which the arrests were made, through the criminal courts, rather than go to trial one by one. A win in the Diet of Debate will have a positive impact on the right to protest in Scotland, and may have a known-on effect in England and Wales.

The involvement of the Advocate General, representing the UK government's interest in the cases, is telling. We are one cog in the united pushback against repressive laws. The preparation for the Debate in the Scottish High Court has been an important pressure in the fight by the people to safeguard our rights to peacefully protest against injustice.

We would be grateful for any donation to help us cover the costs. Thank you for supporting the people who have taken action with Defend Our Juries and are now facing serious legal consequences for holding pieces of cardboard.

On March 18th, the Lord Advocate (via the Procurator Fiscal) unilaterally moved our case to the High Court where a ‘Diet of Debate’ will be heard. This is a pre-trial challenge by the protestors that charges under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are not compatible with the right to freedom of expression and assembly.

If we win, this will push back against the oppression of peaceful protest, with positive repercussions perhaps for the more than 3000 facing the same charge in England and Wales, as well as supporting the Judicial Reviews on whether the proscription of Palestine Action was legal in the first place, both in Scotland and England. 

We can win this! The funds will go directly to Brodies solicitors who are instructing Claire Mitchell KC to represent two signholders, Cathy Allen and Justin Kenrick, in the Debate. The High Court date is likely to be in May.

Thank you for continuing to support the people who have taken action with Defend Our Juries and are now facing serious legal consequences for holding pieces of cardboard.