GlobalEyes/SamDecSR.htm

Welcome to
GlobalEyes

Your Weekly Window
in the Mirror of the World
Spartacus R.
editor of Global Africa Pocket News and author of " Violation " and " The Maãt Mystery " takes another look at the world.

The Samaritan Declaration

The following is the transcript of Spartacus R.'s final submission to the Camberwell Green Magistrates Court at the end of five days of evidence in a case where he and two others were charged with two counts of assaulting police and two counts of obstructing police in the execution of their duty (see British Justice).

Spartacus R.

This whole case, Sir, comes about as a result of many African people being, behaving in the true tradition of their African culture which is to help where help is called for, to assist where it is possible to assist, to be, what the prosecution barrister derided as: “a Good Samaritan”. That is the African tradition, to be Good Samaritans. In fact the story of The Good Samaritan is an African story, told thousands of years before Jesus Christ was born.

So we were acting, the whole group of us, were acting in the cultural tradition of The Good Samaritan. And it doesn’t really matter whether the person who was shouting, screaming for help was an African or a European or an Indian. It was a human being, Sir, who was screaming for help and who was being given extra pain as a result of screaming for help.

That is the reason why we are here today, Sir, because some African people decided to act in keeping with their African cultural tradition and come to the assistance of one who is asking for help.

On the night in question, it is accepted by both PC Bunton and PC Lyons that Mr. Ameyaw was {Spartacus notices that Mr. Daniel Ameyaw, the person they stopped to help and now one of his co-defendants, breaks down in tears as the scene is revived, stops his speech to console Mr. Ameyaw} – I’m sorry, I’m sorry Daniel, I’m sorry, Sir. {Spartacus gives him some water} Are you OK now? {Mr. Ameyaw nods his head} Both PC Bunton and PC Lyons have accepted that Mr. Amayaw was in fact begging for help.

They have accepted that he was on his knees. They have accepted that he was in need of medication. They have accepted that he was in the possession of alcohol – and I say “in the possession of alcohol” because alcohol takes possession of people. They have accepted all these things. And when the African group came along and told them, informed them – just in case they did not know – that this man was distressed, this man needed to have the pain eased, they ignored our pleading. Ignored our pleading. And further than ignoring our pleading, they continued to unleash greater pain unto him - {Baldwyn, the Judge, interrupts inaudibly}.

I know, Sir, I am supposed to deal with my case, and that is what I am dealing with. The reason why I am here is because I heard a scream for help and I stopped to help. That is why I’m here today. I’m charged with obstructing PC Woods in the execution of his duty, which was arresting my wife, Pettrige Roach.

In the process of trying to plead with the officers to release the injurious handcuffs from Mr. Ameyaw, the officers say, in evidence, that they do not remember me. I think that is crucial because it goes to show that I did not do anything to the officers PCs Bunton and Lyons or about the officers or in that situation that they could say was offensive or memorable. Neither of them had any recollection of me.

PC Woods, who is the person who I am supposed to have obstructed – and here I would have to bend over to the law because I don’t know what the law says about obstruction but I know what common law understanding is about obstruction – you get in the way of someone, you’re stopping someone from doing something that they are supposed to be doing. That’s what common law obstruction is. PC Shaun Woods said nothing about me. Nothing! In fact, I was about to question PC Woods about it and you, Sir, reminded me that he didn’t say anything about identifying me. So where is it that I am obstructing PC Woods?

That is for the prosecution to prove and it is clear that they haven’t proved that up to this point. But they brought PC Price, PC (Kenneth) Wood, PC Hammond and a whole lot of other PCs saying that I was pushing and shoving and lounging and doing all this stuff to PC Hammond – I think that is PC Hammond is it not? {inaudible but negative response from Baldwyn}.

I find it strange, I find it strange that someone can be prevented from doing something that you think they might be doing without any indication whatsoever that they were going to do it. I find it strange that somebody can say that I am preventing someone from physically doing something, yet I am not physically doing anything to them. I find it very strange. And if the officer Hammond was to admit that he was assaulting me – he admitted that he was holding me back – at that point when he was holding me back he was assaulting me and he repeated three different times that he was holding me back. And after the third time according to his evidence, after the third time, he says, he told me I am under arrest.

Of course I deny that. I never heard the words “you are under arrest” until after I had been handcuffed. But, PC Price I think it was, tried to identify me as being visible earlier doing something by saying that I was the man in the long coat. And it is quite clear from the evidence of all the other … officers, that I was not the man in the long coat. One officer says I was and how many, four or five officers say I wasn’t. A lot of doubt there.

But I don’t think you are trying to find out whether the man in the long coat did this or did that. You are trying to find out - decide - whether I obstructed PC Woods.

I think, if the prosecution evidence is accepted, it can quite easily be accepted by you, that I assaulted PC Hammond. Yes, it could be accepted, if you say that they are telling the truth. Then all these officers who say that they saw me shove PC Hammond, you could say “well, yes, he assaulted the officer”, but the question is why didn’t they charge me with assaulting PC Hammond?

They had assaulted me, had damaged my body in many parts. They had destroyed information from my digital recorder that was recorded during the day and the night. They had removed that information because they knew that information would tell the court – if there was a court hearing – what happened. They took my digital recorder, destroyed the information, they messed up my elbows, they messed up my arms, messed up my back. They brutalised me and then they decided “er, er, we should charge him with obstruction” and they put up a story, they created a story. The story they created was, I pushed him, I pushed him and I pushed him. I pushed him three times and then he arrested me.

It was said by one of them, I don’t remember which one, maybe if you need to clarify this you could tell us which one it is – it was said by one of them that the distance that I was away from Pettrige would be eighteen feet. The area there is not eighteen feet. Of course he corrected himself afterwards, but it’s still twelve feet. Twelve feet from someone and I am interfering with an arrest with lots of bodies in between?

Everybody said that at this point the place was chuckablock full of people. And I am interfering with an arrest twelve feet away, with whatever number of bodies between myself and that arrest? And I am calling it an arrest because she was finally arrested, but what I saw was a terrible assault. An assault in a fashion that I believe in this country is illegal. That strangle hold, police are not allowed to apply that strangle hold to prisoners any longer. I could be corrected, but I believe that is the case. Some people call it a “deadlock”. Deadlock! Why do they call it a deadlock? Because when they put it on you, there is nothing you can do about it and you can die. You can die. Soldiers kill people like that.

Officer Hammond admitted that I never got past him. He admitted it in evidence that I did not get past him at all. Now where was I going if I did not get past you? How am I interfering with somebody so much distance away? The reason I didn’t get past him is because the moment I identified myself as being concerned about my wife being strangled – and there is no dispute, Sir, about her being strangled – the officers’ statements say that I mentioned strangling. It’s the officers’ statements which say that and there is no contradiction of that. Now if they are saying to you that I am going to prevent my wife from being strangled and they are not telling you that she was not being strangled – correct me, Sir, if I am wrong, but I did not hear anybody say that she was not being strangled.

The prosecution barrister has actually tried to make me out as being some kind of animal because I was trying to move in the direction of my wife. I can’t believe that there is a man alive today who would stand there and watch somebody with a deadlock, a strangle hold on his wife’s neck from the back and not do anything about it. And I was given a hypothetical situation, I was asked hypothetically, {by the judge} what would you have done, what were you going to do if you had not been prevented from going to your wife? What would you have done? And I answered, Sir, that I would have removed the strangle hold from her neck. And then in a very underhanded, destructive and snidey way, this … prosecutor then said “by any means necessary”. Now that to me is totally unnecessary and unfair in a court of law, Sir.

{Baldwyn interjects with: “I’ll be the judge of that.”}

I did not say “by any means necessary”. I did not say that. I said that I would try to remove the strangle hold from my wife. That is what I said I would do. I did not say that I would do anything to the person who was strangling my wife. I did not say that I would do anything to anybody in the vicinity or on my way towards releasing her pain. All I was intent on doing was to remove the strangle hold from her neck and the moment I said I recognised that she was being strangled – my submission is that the moment I said that, I was attacked. I was attacked and brutalised until, finally, they managed to get handcuffs on me and then told me I was under arrest.

You heard from one of the officers, Coles, that he joined in the brutality and he managed to put his 15 – 16 stone weight against me, jammed against the wall. And you’ve heard from this officer accepting, admitting that at that point I was not under arrest. I was being assaulted. I was being assaulted at that point by more than two officers, he being one of them.

Sir, I do not accept that I was interfering with PC Woods. I do not accept that PC Woods was lawfully arresting my wife. PC Woods was not just assaulting my wife. The illegal strangle hold that he had on her meant that if someone else was seen by an officer doing that to someone, they would be charged with attempted murder.

PC Woods was not arresting my wife, he was assaulting her. I was aware of this assault being committed against her and I expressed my awareness, and in the moment of doing so I was attacked.

The police realised this. They realised that they made a mistake but they are not able to accept when they make mistakes because they don’t have to pay for it. Up to now they don’t pay for their mistakes – and I am being very generous with them that they have made a “mistake”. Up to now no police officer has ever been prosecuted for the murder of an African person –

{Baldwyn interrupts “We only wish to deal with the matter before the court at this moment …” (the rest inaudible)}

That is what I am doing, Sir –

{Baldwyn continues with inaudible interruption}

Thank you, Sir. I …

On that day at the end of this scenario at 18 Hollydene, the police realised that they made a mistake and they compounded the mistake because they were afraid that the individuals whom they had wrongfully arrested would do something about it.

They compounded the mistake by charging us. This is why we are here today. And your duty here, as far as the police are concerned, in this police court, is to cover up their mistake. That is what they want you to do. And as a servant of the state, I would expect you to do that. But as a person who is supposed to be dealing with the law on behalf of the queen of this country, I would expect you to do what is right. And what is right is to recognise that these police officers concocted a story to justify their behaviour and then decided to come and use you to rubber stamp that bad behaviour.

Now, if you are a man of the law, I would expect you, I will expect you to find me not guilty as charged and I will expect you to find Pettrige Roach not guilty as charged and I will expect you also to find Mr. Daniel Ameyaw, who is a terribly victimised individual, to be not guilty as charged. Thank you, Sir.

Spartacus R. and his two co-defendants were all convicted and sentenced. They appealed to the Crown Court and eight months later, after a six-day trial, were acquitted of all charges. They are now preparing to sue the thugs and their masters.

---------------- End ----------------

Your comments, criticisms, observations, reactions, etc. are welcome and will be greatly appreciated. All contributions, positive or negative, may be published, unless you request otherwise.

Please feel free to publish this article, providing the source and the author are properly credited, text is not edited and descriptive terms or phrases are not altered in any way without written permission .

Please e-mail your comments and/or queries to Spartacus R.