The State vs Arthur Pendragon

Lugodoc's personal account of

The State
vs
Arthur Pendragon

Salisbury Magistrates Court, September 13th 1995

The Prologue...

King Arthur's peaceful requests to enter Stonehenge at every Summer Solstice since 1985 had long been a thorn in the side of the British government, and he had already been arrested several times over the years, only to be released without charge or aquitted in court. This year for the first time they were able to arrest him under the section 14.b.2. of the brand new Criminal Justice Bill of 1994. This act had been passed by parliament specifically to deal with peaceful protesters who could not be arrested under the old 1986 public order act. His case came up nearly three months later at Salisbury Magistrates Court on Wednesday 13th September. Several druid orders including IOD were there in full druid robes to lend moral support from the public gallery, and to make sure that the press turned up to photograph the silly druids.

It had long been a part of England's liberal tradition that peaceful protest was an accepted act of political expression, but the widespread popular opposition to the government of Thatcher's Britain had become an embarrassment. The government was too unpopular and the peaceful protests were too numerous. Unfortunately for the government, because they were non-violent they could not arrest road-protesters, Stonehenge campaigners, travellers, anti-capitalists or ravers under the old 1986 Public Order Act. The CJB made it an offense for the first time in England to be part of a peaceful "assembly" of twenty or more people if the police told them to move. It made peacefull protest illegal, and it drew massive condemnation from the press, media and every pressure group in the UK. It was, in a word, fascist.

King Arthur was the first person to be arrested, charged and come to court under this new act, and the outcome of this trial would set a legally binding precedent in British case law that would have effects for years to come. And that made it historic.

This author has not sat through many court cases, but this one was interesting so I took notes.

The Court Case

The court convened at 10a.m., then promptly adjourned at 10:20 a.m. so that the three magistrates could see a police video which Arthur had asked to be presented as evidence, even though the prosecution objected to this. We reconvened at 11 a.m.

Confusingly, the prosecution stated that on June 21st King Arthur had been originally arrested under section 14.5 of the old Public Order Act of 1986, but that today in court that charge was being changed to section 14.b.2 of the new Criminal Justice Bill of 1994.

The bench (the three magistrates) began by admitting that they had never heard a case like this before.

Because of its historical precedence, Arthur was defended by none other than John Wadham, the solicitor and spokesman for the British human rights organistation Liberty. The essence of the case was this. At around midnight on June 21st the police had counted "27 or 28 people" scattered about in the road near Stonehenge, who were "clearly there because of the date in question". They approached King Arthur and asked him to leave. He refused. Because the new CJB made it a criminal offense to be in an "assembly" of twenty or more people if the police asked you to move on, he was arrested by PC Robins.

PCs Armstrong and Lewis also gave evidence, and so did Inspector Kirby who was the section commander in charge of the Stonehenge area at that time.

Inspector Kirby had been a police constable at Stonehenge 8 years before in 1988, and that had been a notorious year. At that time the stones had been sealed off for four years, and English Heritage had attempted a compromise by allocating one thousand tickets to certain druids and some other interested parties, but excluding many thousands of other pagans and travellers. When protesters tried to enter the stones they were attacked by hundreds of riot police, and many people were injured. Kirby had policed Stonehenge every year since then, and was now an inspector.

Today in court he said that in his opinion Stonehenge was not a religious gathering, and that he had no knowlege of any attempts by druidical organisations to mediate for peaceful access to the stones.

For the defense John Wadham made several points. He forced Kirby to admit several things.

Firstly, no acts of violence or trespass took place, or appeared as if they might take place. Nobody tried to jump over the fence between the public road (the A344) and the field managed by English Heritage containing Stonehenge. Arthur was arrested standing in the road.
Only Arthur and one other person present (Rollo Maughling of the Glastonbury Order of Druids) were dressed in robes. The others looked like random members of the public. During the hours leading up to his arrest Arthur had only been in the company of this one other robed person, and had usually been at least twenty yards away from any of the others. Kirby had to admit he had no reason to believe that Arthur was in any way connected to the other 25 people present. The prosecution tried to argue that any collection of twenty people in the same general area at the same time could be called an "assembly".
Of the 27 total non-police in the road, 5 were a German television crew and 3 were from the National Council for Civil Liberties, there to monitor the implementation of the CJB. It was therefore even more dubious that there was ever a real group of twenty people there for Arthur to be a part of. Kirby even admitted that when the police operation began at midnight he was not certain that the Germans or the NCCL were still there, meaning that there may have been less than twenty people there when he acted.
Kirby was forced to admit that, although there had been violence at Stonehenge at the solstice in the late 80s, there had been no violence for several years, and that the numbers of people gathering there each year was falling. In 1994 there had been 40 people in the road, this year only 27 (if that), and these few were peaceful and good-natured, and that he had no reason to suspect that they might turn violent. He tried to claim that other officers (which he referred to as "bronze commanders") out in the fields around Stonhenge had reported by radio that hundreds of hippies were crossing the fields towards the stones, but was unable to supply any evidence to support this, either in the form of police video or even written reports from his own men. Not one of the alleged "field crossers" had been turned back or even challenged by the police, and nobody would claim in court to have actually seen one with his own eyes. When Wadham called on him to present his own police notebook as evidence, he had to admit he had not even written it down himself.
When asked why he had ordered his men to clear the area at midnight, he stated that it had been his plan to move in at midnight in any event, because that was when he would have the most police officers present. Therefore he had been motivated to act by his own resources, and not because of any action by the people in the road. At no time had it seemed that any act of trespass was imminent.
The A344 had been closed for two hours that night, between midnight and 2 a.m. There was very little traffic that night, and "no members of the public" (whatever that means).

When Arthur took the stand he did so in his full robes and he insisted on swearing his oath on Excalibur his ceremonial sword, carried into court for him by his sword-bearer Orc. For the prosecution James Stythe attempted to ridicule his title of King and his claim to be the reincarnation of the original King Arthur. Which was not difficult. He also tried to imply that Arthur had sought arrest.

Under cross examination from Stythe, Arthur made several plain statements.

His personal, political or religious beliefs were not on trial.
In 1993 and 1994 the police had allowed him to stand in the road next to the Hele Stone until the dawn, because the police know he's a druid and the high court itself has admitted that the druids propose a peaceful solution to the problem of access to the stones at the solstice.
The high court has stated that prohibition on assembly at Stonehenge is not aimed at religious groups.
He was not at Stonhenge seeking to be arrested, only to stand by peacefully in the road to witness the sun rise in accordance with his spiritual beliefs.
The police action had been illegal under sections 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to perform religious ceremonies in private or in public.

I noticed that the bench seemed very impatient with the prosecution, and frequently told Stythe to hurry up with his case.

Mary Parrott had been one of the three observers present on behalf of the NCCL, and she gave evidence for the defence. She stated that...

She had been at Stonehenge that night as one of three people from the NCCL to observe the police implementation of the new powers under the CJB, and had taken photos.
There had been less than twenty people present at any time, and they appeared to be mostly unconnected with one another in groups no larger than four.
There was a big police presence from 8:30 p.m. onwards.
She had seen no trouble from the public of any sort.

In his summing up for the defense, John Wadham made the following points:

Section 14.b.2 of the new 1994 Criminal Justice Bill made it a criminal offence to take part in any "assembly" forbidden by the police, whether in public or on private land. It makes no attempt to define what an "assembly" is, and the nearest thing to a definition is in section 14.a.9 of the old 1986 Public Order Act which defines it as "20 or more persons". Although the new law prohibits peaceful assembly without attempting to define it, the defense contended that 27 unconnected people including 8 press and human rights observers scattered about over an 80 yard stretch of public road could not constitute an assembly in any reasonable sense of the word. Otherwise the police could arrest any group of twenty people who happened to be walking down the same street.
The law of trespass did not apply to any area with public access rights, especially a highway such as the A344, and this had been established in many previous cases.
There was no evidence of any intent to trespass on the adjoining land administered by English Heritage and containing Stonehenge.
Therefore Arthur had not been part of any "assembly" or shown any intent to trespass
Neither Arthur nor any of the other 27 had done anything unreasonable.
The 1994 CJB was itself illegal under the International Convention On Human Rights and under the European Convention On Human Rights, and that although at the time these conventions were not considered binding on English courts, it was a fact that "in cases where a judgement is uncertain" then magistrates and judges were expected to "use these conventions to make a decision".

The three magistrates retired to consider their verdict.

The Verdict

When the three magistrates returned after only a few minutes, they returned this verdict and I wrote it down:

"Not Proven"

Lugodoc has two friends who are practising magistrates and both have told him the same thing. In England, Northern Ireland and Wales magistrates are only allowed to return one of two possible verdicts - "guilty" or "not guilty". The verdict of "not proven" is only legal in Scotland.

The three magistrates had returned an illegal verdict.

The Epilogue...

King Arthur renewed his application for legal aid and left the court a free man. Outside the courts the press had gathered to record the outcome of this historic judgement, and every single one of them got it wrong, reporting both on television that day and in the local and national press the next day that the judgement had been "not guilty".

This is the photo and text of the report that appeared in The Times the next day, by Lucy Berrington...

'King Arthur' triumphs in the battle of Stonehenge

A LEADING druid worshipper was acquitted yesterday of taking part in a prohibited assembly at Stonehenge, in a decision that casts fresh doubts on the powers of the Criminal Justice Act.

Arthur Uther Pendragon, 41, who insists that he is the reincarnation of King Arthur and claims a spiritual age of 1,451 years, appeared before Salisbury magistrates to face a charge of "trespassory assembly", an offence introduced in the Criminal Justice Act. He was arrested when he visited Stonehenge for the summer solstice. The prosecution is believed to be the first of its kind under the new Act.

The druid was referred to politely but less than regally as "Mr Pendragon" during the hearing, which was watched from the public gallery by other druids in their robes.

James Stythe, for the prosecution, said that the Act, passed in November 1994 amid controversy, limited large assemblies on public property. But Liberty, the human rights organisation that acted as Mr Pendragon's solicitors, said the prosecution failed because assemblies were defined as having more than 20 people. There were 27 druids at the solstice but they had been divided into smaller groups.

A Liberty spokeswoman added: "That was a technicality. The offence of trespassory assembly is a breach of the right to freedom of association and, in this case, freedom of religious belief. The offence was created to prevent this sort of ceremony but this case has shown it doesn't stand up in court." Mr Pendragon's acquittal was announced to applause from the public gallery. He was then granted legal aid for expenses, which had earlier been refused.

The failure of the prosecution comes less than a month after the High Court ruled that two local authorities had unlawfully evicted New Age travellers from authorised camp sites, in the first legal challenge to the eviction powers granted by the Criminal Justice Act.

Mr Pendragon, from Farnborough, Hampshire, had denied taking part in a prohibited assembly. Well-known among druids, he took his court oath on a sword he calls Excalibur and gave his title as Honorary Pendragon of the Glastonbury Order of Druids.

He said it was his intention to perform a religious ceremony at dawn as near as possible to Stonehenge, the 'site that remains the focal point for modern pagan worship, in June.

He maintained all-night vigils four times a year at the equinoxes and solstices, then performed religious ceremonies at dawn. He was never stopped by the police at other times of the year, he claimed, but in June was arrested after a prohibition order was granted to the police.

Yesterday he vowed to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to uphold his right to worship at Stonehenge. He said: "I do not believe this prohibition order is legal. It does not seem reasonable to make an order to stop me worshipping at Stonehenge. I fully intended to hold a religious ceremony that night."

This is the text of the report that appeared the next day in The Independent, by Danny Penman...

'King Arthur' strikes a blow for liberty

Magistrates in Salisbury dealt another blow to the Criminal Justice Act yesterday by finding the self-styled King Arthur not
guilty of trespassary assembly.

   The trespassary assembly provisions of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act were designed to prevent gatherings of 20 people or more at places such as Stonehenge during the summer solstice. Wiltshire police used the provisions to bolster their annual four-mile exclusion zone around Stonehenge during the solstice

   On 20 June, Arthur Pendragon, official swordbearer of the Secular Order of Druids and a member of three other druidic orders, gathered with a few of his brethren to worship. About 20 other individuals were on the same road which runs within yards of Stonehenge. Shortly after midnight the police told them all to leave the area, arresting those who refused.

Mr Pendragon was arrested and charged with trespassary assembly. He denied the charges, claiming the police had infringed his freedom of worship guaranteed under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also argued that they infringed his freedom of assembly under Article 11 and that he was not breaking the law because he acted as an individual.

   Wearing white druidic robes and an iron headband, and swearing his oath over "Excalibur", he said his intentions that night were entirely peaceful James Stythe, for the prosecution, argued that all the people in the area should be considered part of a larger group who were all trespassing on the highway, and that the European Convention on Human Rights did not apply in the UK. Keir Starmer, for Mr Pendragon, said the House of Lords had ruled in 1964 that English courts were entitled to take into account international treaty obligations when interpreting the law. That precedent, taken with others, ensured that the European Convention was binding on English law.

After 15 minutes' deliberation, the magistrates delivered a not guilty verdict.

This photo was taken by Edward Webb just outside the court as we came out. It appeared on page 2 of The Independent with the article above...

King Arthur is on the right looking smug. One of his knights Galahad is behind him, partly obscured by Arthur's staff. Orc is almost totally obscured by Lugodoc hogging the camera on the left, who is lighting a fag.

This was how my parents found out I smoked. If you're reading this Mum, I gave it up years ago.

The underground news video magazine Undercurrents (established by Anita Roddick of Bodyshop fame) carried a short newsburst about it all in issue 4, which may be viewed below. Some titles have been added by this author, who can be glimpsed in the top right corner of the frame standing behind a ranting Tim Sebastian in second 48. Dylan Blight, archdruid of IOD, can be seen standing behind Arthur in second 40.

Return to IOD history page