AIDING LONDON SQUATTERS

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25022, 2 November 1946, Page 9

AIDING LONDON SQUATTERS

CONSPIRACY CHARGES

LONDON, October 31. All five defendants in the squatters’ conspiracy trial at the Old Bailey were found guilty on all counts. They were' bound over for two years. The accused, E. Bramley, E. S. Henderson, G. Garit, M. I. Rosen and Mrs Joyce Alergant, all members of the Communist Party, pleaded not guilty to conspiring to incite squatters to trespass on private property. During the trial to-day there was legal argument on whether any combination of persons depriving somebody of private rights without involving any breach of the criminal code could be classed as joining in an indictable conspiracy. The defence claimed that this could never be the case and the prosecution that it would always be the case.

Mr Justice Stable said: “I propose to tell the jury that it could sometimes be the case.”

Summing up, Mr Justice Stable, dealing with conspiracy to incite to trespass said that he would direct the jury to decide on the assumption that no criminal act was contemplated and that there was no indictable conspiracy unless they were satisfied on two points: '

(1) The jury must convict if it found that the combination of persons was directed, and to the knowledge of those persons, to deprive somebody of their legal rights. (2) 1116 jury must be satisfied that there was a combination to infringe somebody’s rights and have regard to the scope of the combination, the magnitude of the common aim, the numbers involved, and the methods of the combination adopted. The jury could convict if, bearing all these points in mind, it believed that the matter transcended the scope of any possible civil claim and resolved itself into a matter of concern for all citizens interested in the maintenance of good order and a seemly, quiet life. Dealing with the trespass charges, Mr Justice Stable said that it was not possible to prosecute anyone for trespass, but only to sue for damage by trespassers. The jury must decide on the facts, whether there had been a forcible entry. Four of the defendants, excluding Joyce Alergant, were charged under this heading. Mr Justice Stable held that the fact that a body of some 400 people poured into a building, constituted a forcible entry. The defendants did not give evidence.

The jury returned its verdict after a retirement of little more than an hour. ~

Mr Justice Stable agreed with the verdict because the defendants had formed a combination “to set the law at nought and break the rules. If once the idea became prevalent that this is anything but a serious offence it would be a sorry day for everybody ” Mr Justice Stable said he would have sent the defendants to prison if he thought they had been exploiting the misery of homeless persons for a political end. He added that while he entertained no doubts about the jury’s decision, he was not sure of his own interpretation of the law and he offered the defence an opportunity of appeal. The offer was not accepted.