Sworn on behalf of the Defendant

on 5th August 1996
 
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CASE NO: 1996 -T-NO: 731

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
 
 

BETWEEN:

1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

2) COSTAIN CIVIL ENGINEERING LIMITED

Plaintiffs
 
 

- and -
 
 

CHRIS WOLFFE

Defendant
 
 

-------------------------------------------------------------

FIRST AFFIDAVIT OF

CHRIS WOLFFE

-------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

I Chris Wolffe of The Digger Community, Wantage Road, Newbury, Berkshire do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm as follows:-

1. I am the defendant in these proceedings. Save where the context indicates otherwise, the matters to which I refer are in my direct knowledge and are true. I make this affidavit in opposition to the Plaintiff's application for an injunction against me.

2. I was served with the principal papers on which the Plaintiffs intend to rely (Writ, First Affidavit of Lesley Kay Smith) on 9th August 1996.

3. The court will be aware that these proceedings arise out of my involvement in the protest against the Newbury bypass and that, although I am the only defendant listed in these proceedings, there are a number of other protestors in a virtually identical position to me. I understand that on 22nd August 1996, solicitors instructed by such three defendants made an application for emergency leg al aid for them to be represented in these proceedings but that on 27th August 1996 the Legal Aid Board refused the application for legal aid. Iunderstand that it is proposed to renew this application with additional evidence.

4. The papers served by the Plaintiffs, and in particular the first Affidavit of Lesley Kay Smith, refer to a large volume of evidence relied on by the Plaintiffs, but not produced, by way of exhibit - for example video tapes, compulsory purchase orders and other documentation relating to the alleged legality of the scheme and the acquisition of the land upon which I and others are alleged to have trespassed.

5. I have not had the opportunity to take full legal advice about this case, review the evidence against me or look through the evidence in the hands of the Plaintiffs, or third parties, which may support any defence I may have to these proceedings.

6. I would, for example, wish to investigate whether the Plaintiffs and their agents have come to court with "clean hands". I believe, that I may be able to obtain evidence that in relation to the construction of the scheme generally, and the activities of the Plaintiffs and their agents ("the developers") on the days and in the places I am alleged to have trespassed in particular, I may be able to show that the developers were in breach of the civil, if not criminal law.

7. The court will be aware that a large number of protesters have been prosecuted during the course of the protest against the bypass. During the course of those proceedings some evidence has come out of malpractice by the developers.

8. I understand that there has been at least one example of the developers blocking off a public right of way. On 26th July at Newbury Magistrates' Court, a defendant was acquitted of aggravated trespass contrary to s.68. of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 arising from an incident which took place on 12th January 1996 at Enborne Row. The defendant was using a public footpath. The footpath was blocked by security guards acting for the first Plaintiff. The defendant sat down on the footpath, thereby, allegedly, interfering with the developers' work. However the Magistrate accepted that the developers' activities could be shown to be lawful in the sense that they had not followed the procedures necessary lawfully to stop up the footpath.

9. I understand that there is at least one example of those responsible for carrying out evictions exceeding their powers. On 21st August 1996 at Newbury Magistrates' Court, a defendant was found not guilty of obstructed the bailiff contrary to s.10. of the Criminal Law Act 1977 on 29th February 1996 on Snelsmore Common. The defendant argued that he only obstructed the bailiffs to defend himself because the bailiffs were acting unreasonably and dangerously and thereby exceeded their powers to carry out an eviction. This argument and the evidence supporting the argument was accepted by the Magistrate and the defendant was acquitted.

10. I understand that there have been a number of cases where evidence has been accepted by Magistrates that chainsaw operators, acting on behalf of the First Plaintiff , may have breached the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. For example, the learned Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Tim Workman, has stated a case in accordance with s.111 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, arising out of a case he tried and which arose from an incident on 12th January 1996 on the site of the proposed Newbury Bypass. The learned Magistrate found that the chainsaw operator was not wearing gloves and may not have been wearing a visor and although he found the defendant guilty, commented that he thought that these facts "might, in some circumstances amount of [sic] an infringement of the Health and Safety at Work Act" and felt sufficiently concerned about the implications of such a finding to state a case. I understand that in at least a learned Magistrate has made a definitive finding that the developers did breach health and safety law and has adjourned that case pending a ruling by the High Court on the first case.

11. In preparation for some of the criminal cases, I understand that evidence in the form of statements has been obtained by solicitors acting for defendants, that security guards acting on behalf of the First Plaintiff have received inadequate training such as to put the latter, arguably, in breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 which have been made persuant to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

12. I of course have to accept that the instances of possible unlawfulness on the part of the Plaintiffs set out above have no apparent nexus with the instances of trespass alleged against me. What I seek, however, is more time in order to examine whether similar comments can be made about the developers' actions at the time and near the place where I am alleged to have committed trespasses.

13. In addition, I would obviously wish to review the evidence which the Plaintiffs have put forward against me before accepting that it is accurate.
 
 
 
 

AFFIRMED at Newbury

this day of Thursday 5th of September 1996

Before me,
 
 

SOLICITOR/COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS