"A. That the appellant, on the day in question, was taking part in a march organised as part of a protest against the invasion of Iraq, in the vicinity of the Menwish Hill RAF base near Harrogate. B. That the route prescribed by the police for the said march included the main highway adjacent to the base but not the areas between the highway and the perimeter fence of the said base. C. That a large number of participants were present at the march who mostly behaved in a proper manner. However, a group of between 12 and 20 members, including the appellant, left the road and approached the perimeter fence, having crossed a ditch in order to do so. There is some form of footpath that runs alongside the perimeter fence. D. That, fearing possible damage to the perimeter fence, the police officers present decided to intervene. They made a verbal request to the group to return to the road which resulted in a small number of people doing so. E. That the appellant did not return to the prescribed route as requested, as a result of which Police Sergeant Pollard pulled him back by the rucksack which the appellant was wearing. In the course of the struggle which took place on the ground, the appellant deliberately knocked off Sergeant Pollard's police helmet. The appellant was eventually arrested and hand-cuffed. F. We were invited to find (but declined to do so) that the appellant had knocked off PS Pollard's helmet in order to provide a distraction which would cause the release of his partner, Nancy Jackson, who at the time was being restrained by him."
"The people were asked to return to the road as they were no longer on the prescribed route and he [the sergeant] feared that some form of damage could be caused to the fence. The appellant, being a young male carrying a rucksack, was considered by the officer to be one of the people most likely to cause any damage." "6. We were of the opinion that a). as the appellant had deliberately left the road and started to approach the perimeter fence of the base, he had put himself in a position where the police were obliged to intervene; b). this police intervention was reasonable because a group of 20 people, who had ignored warnings and requests to go back onto the road, were moving towards the perimeter fence. This group, which included the appellant, had no legitimate reason to approach the fence and it was reasonable for PS Pollard to believe that criminal offences, such as damage or aggravated trespass, could occur. We concluded that in asking the appellant to move away from the fence and in physically attempting to turn him away from the fence PS Pollard acted reasonably and in the execution of his duty. c). the allegation that the appellant slapped PS Pollard was not supported by sufficiently strong evidence and indeed some contradictory accounts were given. However, the appellant admitted to deliberately knocking off PS Pollard's hat which, in our view, constituted an assault, that is to say an intentional or reckless act which caused (PS Pollard) to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence; d). the appellant argued that by knocking off PS Pollard's hat this would somehow have distracted the officer and had the effect of releasing Miss Jackson who was being restrained by PC Booth. This was, in our view, an extremely tenuous argument and we could find no causal link between the hat being dislodged and the release of Miss Jackson. We therefore rejected the argument of defence of another."
"i. Were the magistrates correct in finding that PS Pollard was acting in the execution of his duty? ii. Were the magistrates correct in rejecting the submission of no case to answer? iii. Were the magistrates correct in rejecting the appellant's argument of self-defence? iv. Were the magistrates' findings of fact supported by the evidence?"