Airport trespass charges dropped

The protestors were arrested at Prestwick Airport

Eight anti-war protesters have been cleared of trespassing at Prestwick Airport because signs on the fence did not clearly show it was an offence.

The protesters were charged with breaking into the airport and boarding a US Air Force plane.

Ayr Sheriff Court heard how the group breached a chain link fence at the site last August. Sheriff John Montgomery accepted the accused's submissions.

The only charge upheld was against Marcus Armstrong, from Milton Keynes.

He was charged with boarding a military aircraft after being positively identified by two police officers.

It is clear that under the section of the act signs must be posted so as to be readily seen and read by members of the public Sheriff John Montgomery

The anti-nuclear campaign group Trident Ploughshares had previously said that its activists carried out inspections of the airport to look for evidence of US munitions bound for Israel for use in the Lebanon conflict.

Matthew Bury, 51, of Glastonbury Road, West Pennard, Somerset; Sarah Lasenby, 69, of Tawney Street, Oxford; Jean Oliver, 49, of Knocklea, Biggar, and Douglas Shaw, 47, also of Biggar, had charges of trespassing on an aerodrome dropped.

Charges against Angie Zelter, 57, of Vallet Farmhouse, East Runton, Norfolk; Marcus Armstrong, 47, of Newport Road, Milton Keynes; and Chris Bluemel, 26, of Portswood Road, Southampton, were also thrown out.

A charge of aiding and abetting trespass was also dropped against Olivia Agate, 66, of Cleasby Road, Menston, near Leeds, West Yorkshire.

Those accused argued that wording on the signs at the site did not indicate a person breaching the fence would be committing an illegal act.

They said this exact wording was necessary according to the Civil Aviation Act 1992.

Six of the eight accused were defending themselves.

Specific wording

Ms Lasenby told the court notices had to warn "trespassers of the liability of their action".

She said: "In this case is it not just that the notices were displayed, they had to be worded specifically and explain liability under the section of the act."

Sheriff Montgomery accepted this and said the prosecution had not produced evidence the signs had the specific wording.

"It is clear that under the section of the act signs must be posted so as to be readily seen and read by members of the public," he said.

"In my view the Crown have to produce evidence of what their notices actually said.

"It will not do to take evidence from what they thought the notices said."