WE FOUGHT THE LAW…WE WON

RMT helpline 0800 376 3706 :: june 2014 :: RMTnews 21 LEGAL Earlier this month RMT branch secretary Mark Harding was found not guilty of an offence brought under section 241 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. His arrest was brought following allegations from a former Transport for London supervisor trainee, that Mr Harding had intimidated him and called him a ‘scab’ on the picket line during the February strike action. Mr Harding denied these allegations. In order to win the case the prosecution would have had to prove that Mr. Harding behaved in a way that amounted to intimidation and that his intent was to compel (ie to force or oblige) the supervisor not to attend work. The trial judge Ms Justice Baine preferred the evidence of the prosecution when it came to matters of findings of fact. However she ultimately decided that Mr Harding had not committed a criminal offence as, although she believed that by his actions he had intended to intimidate the supervisor, he had not compelled him not to enter his place of work. The supervisor had accepted that there was no attempt made to prevent him physically from entering the station – the CCTV available confirmed that he was not pursued into the station and no effort was made to stop him from going into the Station Supervisor’s room following the alleged comments. Ultimately, there was clear evidence that Mr Harding did not use force or pressure to stop him crossing the picket line and that if Mr Harding had intended to compel him, there would have been more persistent aggressive behaviour shown. It is believed by many that this case has been a political one from the outset. British Transport Police pursued this prosecution robustly. Initially they arrested Mark under s.5 Public Order Act which they subsequently changed to a charge under section 241 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as amended by Schedules 7 and 17 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; an offence usually reserved for anti-abortion and anti-fracking protestors. Furthermore following Mr. Harding’s arrest, he was given bail conditions so onerous that they effectively barred him from participating in any trade union activity, or associating with any other known trade unionists: potentially a breach of his human rights under Article 11 of the European Convention, which is the right to freedom of assembly and association. The bail conditions were ultimately overturned, but only after considerable negotiation. Following charge, no attempt was made by the prosecution to address representations made by the defence team, which were directly in line with the ultimate judgement given by the Deputy District Judge (ie that for the prosecution case to succeed they would need to establish that Mr Harding had compelled Mr Scott not to enter his work place, and that there was clearly no evidence of this). This could have saved the public purse thousands, and is particularly shameful at a time when extensive Legal Aid cuts are underway. Whilst this was an important victory for the trade union movement, should the union decide to strike again in the future, the practical implications for pickets are that the police may be inclined to practice extra vigilance in order to secure a conviction to overcome any loss of face in this instance. Please be aware that they may aim to charge picketers with the more common s.5 Public Order Offence, which is easier to successfully convict. I have included the definition of the offence below: “The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provides: A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE IF HE: (a)uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." WE FOUGHT THE LAW… WE WON Liam Welch explains how the union defended RMT member Mark Harding against a ‘politically motivated’ legal case