Lawson-Cruttenden sacked by Oxford University

From Arkangel
Solicitor Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden has been sacked by Oxford University after failing in his attempts to get SPEAK Campaigns founders imprisoned.

Specialist injunction lawyer Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden has made a small fortune out of misusing the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act.

The Act was originally designed to protect vulnerable woman but has been manipulated by the firm Lawson-Cruttenden and Co in order to make it easy for big business to stifle legitimate protest. It was reported that the university paid its legal team approximately £44,000 to build up a contempt of court case against SPEAK campaigns founders Robert Cogswell and Mel Broughton in order to get them imprisoned. Lawson-Cruttenden was immediately sacked after his failure to win the key case for the university.

Mr. Justice King dismissed the case against Robert Cogswell in the High Court on 1st February. Earlier on in the day Oxford University had dropped the contempt of court proceedings against Mel Broughton.

The charges stemmed from an article posted on the SPEAK website on 16th October 2006 which highlighted who SPEAK believe to be the company responsible for building a new animal testing lab at Oxford University. The university’s solicitors claimed SPEAK had broken the terms set forth in the injunction that prohibit the naming of ‘protected’ persons. The name of the contractor was also sent out in an email alert to more than 700 subscribers. Because of this, the university demanded and was granted an order by the High Court forcing Mr Cogswell and Mr Broughton to hand over the list of subscribers, even despite the fact that the name of the builder had also been published on numerous other websites, including the Guardian news site and the Oxford Mail.

However, as the list was not in the control of Mr Cogswell or Mr Broughton, they were unable to produce it in the allotted time and university solicitors Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden then sought to imprison them both on contempt of court charges.

An inside source within the university has also told Arkangel that another reason for the sacking of Mr. Lawson Cruttenden was the fact that the university were unhappy with his firm’s “unprofessional” conduct, after it was disclosed in Court that despite the fact that Lawson Cruttenden & Co had accused SPEAK of being involved in “intimidation” and “harassment” and of orchestrating a “terrorist” campaign, and had further accused Arkangel and its editor, Robert Cogswell of being a mouthpiece for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and having links with “violent extremists”, those working for the firm, and in particular Mr. Rizwan Majid, the main architect of the Injunction proceedings against SPEAK and its co-founders, was passing scanned copies of past Arkangel magazines to the Arkangel website so that they could be used on the archive page.

It would appear that Oxford University are unhappy that at the same time as Lawson-Cruttenden & Co and Mr. Majid were compiling legal files to be used against Arkangel and its editor, those working for Mr. Lawson-Cruttenden were passing files to Arkangel knowing full well that they would be used on the Arkangel website.

Robert Cogswell commented: “Mr. Lawson-Cruttenden and those working for him are playing a very dangerous game, they profess to believe in the rule of law but at the same time they are clearly attempting to misuse the legal system and hoodwink the Courts in order to presumably line their own pockets.”

He further added, “In the one breath Arkangel has been accused of being in league with “violent extremists” and being a mouthpiece for the ALF, which I refute totally. One only has to look at the Arkangel website to see just how absurd this accusation is. However, whilst at the same time accusing us of being involved with “violent extremists”, those working for Lawson-Cruttenden & Co are passing documents to the people they are accusing of being “terrorists”. They can’t have it both ways. Either we are “terrorists”, in which case what are they doing passing us documents, or we are not, in which case they are lying to the courts. Either way, they are acting in a disgraceful manner and in my opinion both Mr. Lawson-Cruttenden and Mr. Majid should be struck off the Law Society registrar and should be banned from practicing law. In my opinion they are making a mockery of the British Judicial system.”

This is not the first time that the firm Lawson-Cruttenden have been accused of unprofessional conduct. Arkangel ran a news story on the 17th January this year that anti arms trade campaigners have handed in 7 official complaints to the Law Society regarding the conduct of Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden, who represented EDO MBM in their failed attempt to gain an injunction against protesters at their Brighton factory.

In March 2005 Mr Lawson-Cruttenden, on behalf of the Brighton arms manufacturers, began proceedings aimed at preventing anybody protesting within a kilometre of the factory (save for at a designated time in a designated ‘protest area’). The action sparked a year long high-court battle against campaigners ending in EDO MBM dropping the case at a cost of at least a million pounds.

Throughout the case Mr Lawson-Cruttenden had unprecedented access to confidential material held on campaigners by Sussex Police. The complaints to the law society cover the manner in which he obtained this disclosure.

Advertisements

One Response

  1. Another corp used PFHA civil injunction via CPR Part 8 procedure against me cos I filed and won a law suit. The basis of teh law suit was an attack on my trade motivated by scouse hate intentional cruelty including defamation breach of contract blackmal harassment conspiracy, and it turned out also they were doing Auschwitz-style secret slave trading. I won that case cos they wouldnot defend, they have contacts in highest level of state, they got it struck out with no work done, along the way presenting the secret contract whereby they had slave traded me and which matches a contract from Auschwitz between the SS and IG Farben. They used a PFHA civil injunction to then ban reporting of the court case and of any other court cases on earth related to this dispute. They have an office in Liverpool and are afraid of being burnt out. The civil injunction is againat everyone who hears of it especially they will use it against entire scouse families to protect the firm in Liverpool once word gets out on the street. So civil wat beckons. Anyway it turned out the cops were having planning meetings with the firm knowing it is a scouse hate criminal, handing over investigation files and tipping them off to my legal strategy and evidence to back it, this was done by firm using the police to arrest me and forcibly question me on teh basis I am guilty if I do not answer, then the file was kicked back to the firm’s law dept and managers in a deal, we give you file now you give is PFHA civil injunction later. The CPR PArt 8 for getting a acivil injunction is isame as the procedure of the Gestapo protective custody court, such are injunctions are the same as nazi protective custody. The ‘offense’ described in the PFHA is teh same as Hitler’s new conception of a criminal law, namely even if teh act is not criminal under ny specific definition you should look to see whether in the sound sentiment of th epeople it ought to be criminal. I am a degree qualified historian and I have read the nazi war crimes trials. Anyways, the point is they are not suppressing protest for the sake of suppressing protest, they are pursuing the same civil strategy as the Nazis that is they are building the kind of socirty that the Nazis called The New Order for Europe but without starting a world war and taking longer, they are p to all kinds of shit and suppression of protest is just one of the tools used to help them do the other greater shit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: