'Guilty' of a 'crime' for feeding the homeless

Today, Amanda and Kim were found guilty of "breaching a dispersal order under s35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014", after Kim had been giving food to the homeless outside the Old Bank, in Castle St, Liverpool and Amanda was seen by Police throwing a sandwich to people who she believed to be homeless, who were occupying the building in May 2015.

After a three day trial in Feb 2016, two others charged with Amanda and Kim, were acquitted. But Amanda and Kim's trial was adjourned until today, when they were both found guilty.

Judge Shaw sentenced Kim to 40 hours community work, £60 victim surcharge and £713 court costs, and Amanda recieved the same surcharge and costs, but was given a curfew (8am to 10pm) and ordered to wear a tag.

In authorising this power the inspector (or above) must have regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

"An authorisation under s34 of the Act must -

(a) be in writing

(b) be signed by the officer giving it, and

(c) specify the grounds on which it is given.

Where an authorisation is in force under Sec 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation - according to Sec 35:

(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and

(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction.

Two conditions need to be met for a direction to be given:

The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to -

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

The officer considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder."

Neither Amanda or Kim had harassed, alarmed or distressed members of the public in the locality, nor had they committed any crimes or behaved disorderly. Therefore, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that they had 'contributed' to the two conditions, and the two conditions had not been met. I'd be of the view that their arrests were quite unlawful.

In my view, the only way that Amanda and Kim are guilty of this offence is, if giving food to the homeless, or anyone for that matter is 'anti-social behaviour, then they are guilty.

If giving food to others is not 'anti-social behaviour', as most sensible and compassionate people would surely agree, then they should both have been acquitted.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Amanda's Trial for 'feeding the hungry' - Adjourned until Feb 2016

Amanda was in court today to face charges that she 'failed to comply with a Sec 34 dispersal order'. The trial was adjourned as the Police turned up without any evidence. Judge Andrew Shaw apologised to the defendants for the trial not going ahead

Amanda's Lawyer told the Judge that they had been left “in the dark” over the prosecution case.

Under legislation governing court procedure, the Crown Prosecution Service was required to serve evidence in sufficient time for the defence to prepare their case. But Richard Brigden, representing Doyle and Cawson, told the court the CPS were planning to rely on two and a half hours of CCTV footage during the case, which had not been served.

According to the CPS, the footage had been sent to Merseyside Police for editing.

Judge Shaw said: He said: “I’m not being critical of the defence, because this does appear to be a prosecution problem, but the law requires both sides to be pro-active and I’m not seeing letters in September, October, November. I’m not seeing letters to the court explaining the problem.”

He adjourned the trial until February 9.





Follow @HuytonFreeman

VIDEO: Huyton activist arrested for feeding the hungry.

Local activist Amanda was arrested yesterday by Merseyside Police after she attempted to throw food to hungry people in the Old Bank building in Castle Street, Liverpool.



Merseyside Police had put in place a 'Section 35 - Dispersal order'. These orders have to be signed by an Inspector who has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of those powers in the locality during that period may be necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of — (a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b)the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

A constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation.The constable has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to - (a)members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b)the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder and that the the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of the events mentioned in (a) or (b).

It is clear from the video, that Amanda was NOT harrassing, alarming or distressing anyone, nor was she committing any crime, and therefore in my view the 'arrest' was clearly both illegal and unlawful.

Amanda was charged with refusing to comply with a direction from a Constable to leave the area and released on bail.

Amanda is due to present herself in court on June 16th 2015.

Follow @HuytonFreeman