Hartlebury Common CL68 - Fight against fencing continues
The story behind the Police arrest of a protester for the partial removal of unlawful fencing
This is the Statement Anthony Barnett has made to the Police
I Anthony Barnett (aka tony barnett) wish to state that on the 6th October 2011, I was in situ when the unlawful fence enclosure was partly removed, I will not make any comment as too the person-s identity-s that removed the impediment.
I will however state that it was taken down with lawful excuse and it was not a criminal act.
The officer that attended the incident resembled someone that had just been let loose; he was rampaging up and down the vicinity barking out orders that he did not have remit/cause; I am willing to explain in more detail.
The male officer was in danger of causing a breach of the peace with his attitude to which I am also willing to explain in more detail.
I had to separate this officer from the arrested man within the first few minuets of his arrival at the scene, had I not, there was cause for concern in as much assault/fracas was imminent between the officer and the arrested man.
The male officer sought evidence as to which person-s had taken down the enclosure, only one person unknown to me claimed to have seen the incident but did not wish make a statement, or to be involved, but did state that the fence should not be there, he, was the informant!
The male officer then asked me what he should do next, I advised he should go home, this is/was not a criminal matter but civil, I also suggested to him that the complainants should seek legal advice, we already have legal representation via my firm of solicitors should the need arise.
The male officer was completely out of control with the situation, he stated that he had to “arrest” someone; I suggested he could arrest me, but decided to arrest another.
I will state that the officer’s reason for the arrest was a vexatious one, and bias, I believe due to the altercation, if, “criminal damage” had been effected, he had no evidence to produce, he obtained no written or verbal evidence, or proof that the enclosure was on land owned by WCC, or it was a lawful development.
I will also object to the article given too the press, they say by “West Mercia Police” claiming criminal damage to fencing on the registered common land, that statement is an indictment, a formal accusation without evidence, and therefore all members of the public at the scene are guilty of the alleged criminal damage.
The fencing is an unlawful enclosure; the application by WCC was by way of false representation to the SOS, the claims made by WCC to cause un-necessary police attendance was again issuing false representation by WCC.
I will also state that the arrest was wrongful, there was no evidence to suggest that a public order offence had or was imminent, and the imprisonment was therefore false, there was no suggestion by the on scene officer that there was a danger of a breach of the peace, so no caution was given, had one been given, then the area would have been vacated.
This caution would also have included WCC until the matters of rights and wrongs were sorted out through the courts.
A member of the public prevented the on scene police officer from causing an affray; I was that member of the public.
The lady officer’s attitude was impeccable through out, and was in my opinion distressed at the arrest, heard to say “O No” in my presence.
3 In conclusion, may I suggest that West Mercia, demand that WCC disclose information that is relevant to the true facts as to their claims to Locus stan-di, our solicitor will use this letter to the benefit of the arrested, and will also demand full disclosure from WCC.
This is a true statement on which I will be questioned.
tony barnett Chairman Common Heritage 2001