No more injunctions protest!

Spotted fleeing the area as the demo started up was one Nicola Woolcock, an excuse of a journalist with the The Times and the pet of the injunction lawyer Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden. Crappenden like to give briefings to the press before his injunction court cases so he can create a biased atmosphere around them, and Nicola Woolcock has proven herself a worthy acolyte. She is regularly at the court hearings, staying to hear Timothy's wonderfully plum tones (not bad for a barrow boy, eh Timmybabes) and then writing accounts on the back of them. Though, she always seems too busy to actually ask the defendants their side of the story (check out her back catalogue at  http://www.lawson-cruttenden.co.uk/press.html). But hey, why let the truth get in the way.

If you think that such biased reporting is not acceptable, or that sucking up to a man so devoid of morals he would destroy the right to protest in the pursuit of profit, why not drop her a line at  nicola.woolcock@the-times.co.uk or complain to her editor at

 home.news@thetimes.co.uk,  editor@thetimes.co.uk

The Times
News International
1 Pennington Street
London
E1 9XN
Tel: 020 7782 5000 Fax: 020 7488 3242

After all, it is not just the lawyers who need to be held accountable....

brilliant action guys, hope we will see you at the national demo

Stop and think!

However much we may dislike lawyers in general, it is inappropriate to demonstrate against a lawyer based upon the interest whom he or she is representing. Remember, even if the EDO folks were (supposedly) guilty of boiling live babies and serving them up for dinner they would be entitled to legal representation in court.

You aren't dmeonstrating against EDO by this action but against the right of legal representation for those of whom we disaprove.

The post by Mike illustrates something that all lawyers have to face, the representation of a client whose views, opinions, and belief structure is different to our own.

EDO may well be involved in activities that many would find unpleasant, indeed the Arms Industry is one that is used to help lawyers in their training. For example.

Would you represent a company that made land mines ?

Would you represent a company that made land mines if they were going to be used to protect a third world nation from an aggressive invader ?

Would you represent a company that made land mines if they wre going to be used to protect this country from an aggressive invader ?

Would you represent a company that made land mines if they wre going to be used to protect this country and your familiy tomorrow from an aggressive invader that wanted to rape your wife and kill your children ?

I'd agree with you mate except that EDO has not been taken to court its the other way round- they are pressing charges and pushing for the injunctions.

this lawyer has been incredibly instrumental in writing these anti-protest laws and pushing for their use against protesters. Lawyers have some discretion of which cases to take or not especially ones as expensive as this guy.

The message was simple stop eroding our rights to protest - EDO is a legitimate protest target. (its funny - but most of the other lawyers in the square seemed to really enjoy the event ... a break from trawling through all those dreary books)

If they were on trial of course they should be represented... but this is a different matter.

I am unsure of the logic in your argument. Lawyers are instructed by clients, we do not issue papers unless asked to do so. The firm in this case has been asked by its client (EDO) to defend it against what it sees as an interuption to its business. The fact that you and I are of the opinion that what EDO does is wrong does not matter.

I think this is something the public finds hard to grasp - we do not always like our clients, we do not always agree with their position on issues but we do think they have a right to the best legal representation we can provide. If that means using tctics and procedures that you find unpleasant - sorry tough. You have the right to employ me tomorrow and I will use every part of the law I can to protec or further your interests.

When you say, 'we do think they have a right to the best legal representation we can provide', do you mean 'we do think they have a right to the best legal representation they can afford'?

> You have the right to employ me tomorrow and I will use every part of the law I can to protec or further your interests.

Right maybe. Ability, probably not? One law for the rich corportations who can pursue their financial interests in making military equipment; another for ordinary civilians with no financial interest to be able to protest at this way of making money.

If as a laywer you make a speciality of suppressing protest you are going to be employed by some shits with some real financial interest in it... Go figure

yeah right...I heard that EDO have forked out over 50 grand on the services of failed lawyer Lawson-Cruttenden. Can't be that many women being stalked who can afford that. How many of your clients are entitled to Legal Aid Timothy.

When a protest is targeted at a particular individual activists should always consider the balance between the rights of that individual to live in peace versus the desire to make them aware of the strength of feeling on certain issues.

I feel that this protest was justified given the civil rights implications of such injunctions and the activities of EDO. The protest was not as a previous post suggested saying that EDO should not be entitled to legal representation but expressing concern about the increasing use of injunctions to prevent peaceful protest.
I also agree that the legal system is definitely tilted in favour of those with money.

However as a word of caution I would argue that (especially) when protests are targeted against particular individuals we should express our displeasure without resorting to personal insults. Fortunately this particular protest was very good natured.

"Lawyer" trots out the conventional view that advocates must represent their clients to the best of their abilities, without regard to whether they approve of their behaviour.

This conceit is a large part of what gives lawyers such a bad name; and anyway, it's a lie. The truth is that some lawyers work exclusively for corporate clients, for example on M&A work; some specialize in big-ticket libel actions; and some act exclusively for legal-aid criminal defendants. Lawyers *can* choose their clients, and the choices they make are moral choices. The cab-rank is a fiction, and it's perfectly legitimate to hold a lawyer answerable for the cases he chooses fight.

Just a quick comment on this demonstration. I cannot see the logic in demonstrating outside the offices of solicitors or barristers who represent EDO, HLS or any other company. The demonstration did not get meaningful positive media coverage and is hardly going stop any lawyer from seeking a similar legal redress for any company that can meet the evidential burden. What it does show is that activists have no regard for due legal process and target all those who disagree with them. Don’t forget that Judges are appointed from the legal fraternity and won’t look kindly on this sort of protest at members of their brethren…don’t think it won’t influence their decisions! What is next a night time visit by some idiot with paint stripper to his home? That will do the cause of peaceful protest no good whatsoever. This sort of protest is only drawing negative mainstream media attention so STOP IT!!!

Its interesting these debates have prompted some interesting discussions on legal/moral duty.

I agree with the person who wrote about personal liberty of individuals
- thats why the action was done in fancy dress with music and good humour!

The aim of the action was to show some solidarity with the EDO campaign while attempting to raise exactly these questions about who lawyers except cases from.
A press release was sent to all major news outlets - but unless you dress up like superman and hang off nelsons column the corporate media rarely touches most protests.


Legal neutrality is an ideal not a reality.

In this case this lawyer is specialising in restricting protest - using laws that were not originally designed for such things.
In short he has made a career out of big money cases defending large rich institutions and corporations that engage in morally reprehensible acts. This as a number of posts have said illustrates the inequalities in our legal system and the skew produced by our elitist and capitalist system.
Thus I feel that trying to raise our moral objection to the cases he takes is legitimate especially when done in good humour.
If he didn't except this client they would find it harder to hide behind the pro-money British legal system when commiting odious acts such as arms dealing - hopefully they might stop arms dealing! (naieve I know)

Another point was that the whole square was full of lawyers - none of whom were the subject of protest but who came out and cheered and waved at us.
These lawyers clearly enjoyed the experience - and if they take away the message that our civil rights are being eroded by precedents being made by these kind of cases, then maybe they will help do something about it.