Complete misunderstanding of the law and the way it works
Oh and I never suggested you mentioned injunctive relief - I mentioned it because it is significant to the position of the court. Quite why you are suggesting I said you mentioned injunctive relief is mystifying
All your diversionary words do nothing to undermine the fact that criminal conduct is criminal conduct
I would say exactly the same to you.
I won't be in court that day, but if I were, I would be arguing ...
The prime duty of government is to protect citizens. In this case there was no direct risk - ''proximate cause to harm'' - to the safety of UK citizens. However that prime duty does include ensuring the human rights of citizens (HRA1998).
The criminal acts committed by PA activists are a comfortable fit within the UK government policy definition of ''extremism'' which does not define any criminal acts as ''terrorist''. This being because extremist acts are covered by existing statute such as for but one example, criminal damage, which places no upper limit on monetary value within the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
As these acts fit within the definition of extremism they should be considered within that framework.
The Terrorism Act does indeed give mention to acts
with intent to influence government. Are we to drag all lobbyists and members of think tanks before the court on terrorist charges? Clearly not. I will argue that campaign groups that intend to influence government are exercising their democratic rights. An authoritarian government might say otherwise - well actually they have - and that is the difficulty - they have placed an impediment on human rights in one act without legitimising it with a specific exemption in the HRA.