This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/16/trial-of-union-leader-for-assault-by-megaphone-collapses

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trial of union leader for assault by megaphone collapses Union chief to sue police over megaphone assault trial
(about 4 hours later)
Judge says use of loudhailer not sufficient to amount to assault on two police officers Ex-Uber driver James Farrar to claim malicious prosecution after case collapses due to lack of evidence
The trial of a gig economy trade union leader for allegedly assaulting two police officers by using a megaphone close to their ears has collapsed because of a lack of evidence. A gig economy union leader is to sue the police after he was wrongly prosecuted for alleged assault at a demonstration by using a megaphone close to police officers’ ears.
James Farrar, the leader of the private hire branch of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), was prosecuted for assault by “beating” of two police officers who complained that their hearing was hurt when he was leading a protest against unfair treatment of minicab drivers on 4 March last year in Parliament Square, London. James Farrar, a former Uber driver who leads the private hire branch of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), will claim malicious prosecution after his trial at Southwark crown court collapsed on Thursday because of a lack of evidence.
Addressing the jury on the third day of the trial at Southwark crown court, the judge Philip Bartle QC said: “On the facts of this case, the use of a loudhailer was not, considering the law, sufficient to amount to an offence of the unlawful application of force.” Judge Philip Bartle QC instructed the jury to acquit after two days of evidence and said it was “very unfortunate indeed that this case arose”. Farrar described the prosecution as “a corrupt and crude attempt by the Metropolitan police and Transport for London to break our union and further disenfranchise precarious workers”.
The jury returned verdicts of not guilty and Farrar’s defence team said they would apply for costs. Farrar’s solicitor said he could also sue the Crown Prosecution Service in the same civil suit.
In a statement, Farrar criticised the case as “a corrupt and crude attempt by the Metropolitan police and Transport for London to break our union and further disenfranchise precarious workers”. Farrar said the prosecution was only triggered when he chased up a complaint about police treatment of the minicab drivers at the 4 March protest which he believed was discriminatory because police were responding differently to a simultaneous black taxi protest. He asked the Independent Office for Police Conduct to escalate his complaint on 23 July 2019 and he was charged with assault 48 hours later.
The protest complained that TfL’s decision to levy the congestion charge on minicab drivers but not black-cab drivers amounted to racial discrimination as black-cab drivers are predominantly white and minicab drivers are mainly from ethnic minorities. Two police officers complained their hearing was hurt by Farrar’s loud megaphone when he was leading the protest against the mayor of London’s decision to levy the congestion charge on minicabs but not black taxis. The union alleges it amounts to racial discrimination because minicab drivers in London are mostly from ethnic minorities while taxi drivers are mostly white.
The court heard that the prosecution was brought after Farrar made a formal complaint about the policing of the protest. The alleged assault occurred when police tried to clear protesters away from flatbed trucks the Met had brought in to help remove parked cars. “We think the prosecution was a result of James’s complaints,” said Raj Chada, his solicitor at Hodge Jones Allen. “The police were covering their own backs and using it as a smokescreen.”
Farrar had wanted his members to be able to drive on to the square and complained to police that they were being treated differently to black-cab drivers, who were also protesting that day. Judge Bartle instructed the jury there was no evidence of “beating” and that using a loudhailer was not sufficient to amount to an offence of the unlawful application of force. Even if an application for costs is successful, the three-day trial will still have cost Farrar and his union around £20,000.
He said it was because “the demonstrators came from black and minority ethnic backgrounds”, Terence Woods, prosecuting, told the jury. “Black-cab drivers are predominately white British.” Farrar said: “I now call on the Mayor of London to conduct an urgent investigation into this case and ensure those responsible are held to account. I have now instructed my lawyers to pursue this matter.”
Bartle said: “It was very unfortunate indeed that this case arose at all, in the light of what had happened in the past. That is all I can really say about that.” The alleged assault occurred when police tried to clear protesters away from flatbed trucks the Met had brought in to help remove parked cars.
He told the jury: “The evidence in this case did not disclose an offence. The essence of the argument which I accept was that the facts did not justify the offence in either case of assault by beating, because that offence requires unlawful application of force and I accepted the defence argument that on the facts of this case the use of a loudhailer was not, considering the law, sufficient to amount to an offence of the unlawful application of force.” Farrar had wanted his members to be able to drive on to the square and complained to police that they were being treated differently to the protesting black-cab drivers.
The prosecution told the jury that the loud noise from Farrar’s megaphone exacerbated an ear infection in one of the officers, Sgt James Lewis. PC Ann Spinks claimed she was left with her ear ringing “like a fire alarm going off”. The prosecution told the jury that the loud noise from Farrar’s megaphone exacerbated an ear infection in one of the officers, Sgt James Lewis. PC Ann Spinks, who was diagnosed with a hearing problem several decades ago and wore hearing aids, claimed she was left with her ear ringing “like a fire alarm going off”.
“My ear at that time had gone bright red and was quite hot to touch,” she said. “The initial ringing in my ear was still happening towards the end of that day and it wasn’t as bad as it had initially been, probably about two or three days after.” “The initial ringing in my ear was still happening towards the end of that day and it wasn’t as bad as it had initially been, probably about two or three days after,” she said.
Jurors were told Spinks had been diagnosed with a hearing problem several decades ago, leading her to now wear hearing aids in both ears. Ikah Peart QC, for Farrar, put it to her that the noisy demonstration was like “a loud rock concert” and “you can’t attribute the ringing in your ear simply because you’ve chosen to stand in front of Mr Farrar’s megaphone.”
Woods said during the trial: “I think it is right to say that you many years before had seen somebody about your hearing.”
Spinks replied: “Yes. I was told that by the time you’re 50, 55, your hearing will be significantly less than it is now.”
Ikah Peart QC, for Farrar, said: “During that protest there were all manner of equipment deployed to make noise. That’s what the demonstration was like – a loud rock concert. You can’t attribute the ringing in your ear simply because you’ve chosen to stand in front of Mr Farrar’s megaphone.”
“Not specifically, no,” Spinks replied.“Not specifically, no,” Spinks replied.
The IWGB said in a statement afterwards: “The union is deeply concerned that police allegations came after the union had lodged official complaints with the Metropolitan police road and transport command (MPSRTP) over police behaviour at the demonstration. Judge Bartle told the jury: “The facts did not justify the offence in either case of assault by beating, because that offence requires unlawful application of force and I accepted the defence argument that on the facts of this case the use of a loudhailer was not, considering the law, sufficient to amount to an offence of the unlawful application of force.”
The IWGB said it was “deeply concerned that police allegations came after the union had lodged official complaints with the Metropolitan police road and transport command over police behaviour at the demonstration”.
“Farrar complained about police violence against protesters and terrorist profiling of union members. He was released under investigation for four and a half months and a charging decision was made within 48 hours of him escalating his earlier complaint about police behaviour after police inaction.”“Farrar complained about police violence against protesters and terrorist profiling of union members. He was released under investigation for four and a half months and a charging decision was made within 48 hours of him escalating his earlier complaint about police behaviour after police inaction.”
The Met and the CPS have been contacted for comment.