DAY 4134: SEPTEMBER 26TH 2012.

Tomorrow we are back in the Royal Court of Injustice in Court 16.

I am curious as to how the script could be written that it is okay/there is a defence to not only concealing but destroying for 254 days my S143(8)"reasonable excuse" that should only need to have been given once, on January 16th 2012, to cover all our campaign property.

The state has not quite grasped how Freedom of Expression, is supposed to be ...free.

The response to my Application For an Injunction, by the Commissioner of the Metropolis' seriously overpaid and corrupt briefs who were also - both - involved in the G20 Simon Harwood cover up, is pure evil, when you think about 254 days without warmth and shelter in all weathers, (and bearing in mind the weather just this week).

And I bet the Commissioner doesn't want to make the necessary disclosures relating to the enormous police operation on January 16th 2012.



Thursday, 27th September 2012
Not before half past 10

APPLICATION NOTICE IHQ/12/0606 Tucker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis


From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To: babs tucker
Subject: Your application for an injunction listed to be heard on 27 September 2012
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:34:19 +0000

Ms Tucker,

In respect of your application which has been listed to be heard on Thursday I enclose by way of service:

1 Bundle of document that I have lodged with the court
2 Counsel’s skeleton argument
3 Costs schedule

Please acknowledge receipt.

Martin Forshaw Partner Police Team Weightmans LLP DDI : 0151 242 7949 e-mail :
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                          Claim No:HQ12X03564


BARBARA GRACE TUCKER                                  Claimant




Representation Claimant - in person

               Defendant - Andrew Waters

Time estimate 1 hour

Essential reading

Particulars of Claim and Application Notice

Issue Whether the Court should grant a mandatory injunction preventing the Defendant’s officers from enforcing section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

Background claim

The Claimant is a member of the Parliament Square Peace Campaign.

In claim No. HQ12 X03564 she seeks damages against the Defendant arising out of a number of incidents at Parliament Square in 2011 and 2012.

Her claim includes allegations of false imprisonment, assault, malicious prosecution, unlawful seizure of property, negligence and harassment.

Injunction By an Application Notice dated 19 September 2012 the Claimant seeks an interim injunction “to prevent the police enforcing Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, s.143 until the conclusion of proceedings into the “reasonable excuse” where no obstruction of the highway, trespass or public disorder is alleged”.

The only evidence in support of that application is contained in the Application Notice and reads “the police have no due process regarding the defence of “reasonable excuse” that can be read down to be compatible with the Human Rights Act, Articles 3, 10 and 11”. Legislation

The legislative provisions relating to the policing of demonstrations in Parliament Square, insofar as they are relevant to this claim, are to be found in sections 142 to 145 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

Section 142 defines the controlled area of Parliament Square that is governed by the legislation.

Section 143 sets out activities that are prohibited in the controlled area of Parliament Square.

The section provides:

(1) A constable or authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is doing, or is about to do, a prohibited activity may direct the person— (a) to cease doing that activity, or (b) (as the case may be) not to start doing that activity.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, a “prohibited activity” is any of the following— (a) operating any amplified noise equipment in the controlled area of Parliament Square; b) erecting or keeping erected in the controlled area of Parliament Square— (i) any tent, or (ii) any other structure that is designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in a place for any period; (c) using any tent or other such structure in the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of sleeping or staying in that area; (d) placing or keeping in place in the controlled area of Parliament Square any sleeping equipment with a view to its use (whether or not by the person placing it or keeping it in place) for the purpose of sleeping overnight in that area; (e) using any sleeping equipment in the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of sleeping overnight in that area. (

3) But an activity is not to be treated as a “prohibited activity” within subsection (2) if it is done— (a) for police, fire and rescue authority or ambulance purposes, (b) by or on behalf of a relevant authority, or (c) by a person so far as authorised under section 147 to do it (authorisation for operation of amplified noise equipment).

(4) In subsection (2)(a) “amplified noise equipment” means any device that is designed or adapted for amplifying sound, including (but not limited to)— (a) loudspeakers, and (b) loudhailers.

(5) In subsection (3)(b) “relevant authority” means any of the following— (a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department, (b) the Greater London Authority, or (c) Westminster City Council.

(6) It is immaterial for the purposes of a prohibited activity— (a) in the case of an activity within subsection (2)(b) or (c) of keeping a tent or similar structure erected or using a tent or similar structure, whether the tent or structure was first erected before or after the coming into force of this section; (b) in the case of an activity within subsection (2)(d) or (e) of keeping in place any sleeping equipment or using any such equipment, whether the sleeping equipment was first placed before or after the coming into force of this section.

(7) In this section “sleeping equipment” means any sleeping bag, mattress or other similar item designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping in a place.

(8) A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Section 144 gives further provision on directions issued under section 143.

Section 145 provides a constable with a power to seize and retain a “prohibited item” [as defined in section 143(2)] that is on any land in the controlled area of Parliament Square if it appears to the constable that the item is being, or has been, used in connection with the commission of an offence under section 143.

What the Claimant seeks The reference in the Claimant’s Application Notice to the conclusion of proceedings into the “reasonable excuse” is obviously a reference to section 143(8).

It is not however apparent what she is referring to when she seeks an injunction “until conclusion of proceedings into the reasonable excuse”.

It is not obvious to the Defendant whether she is referring to ongoing criminal proceedings against her; civil proceedings brought by her; some other proceedings in which a challenge to the legality of section 143 has been brought; or simply a hope that the Courts will in due course provide guidance on what may amount to a “reasonable excuse”.

The Defendant’s case

Whatever “proceedings” the Claimant is referring to, the Defendant’s case is that her application for an injunction is totally without merit and should be dismissed.

Her application amounts to a request to the Court to prohibit the police from using and enforcing valid legislation.

It would be against public policy for such an injunction to be granted.

The terms of section 143 are clear and unambiguous.

A constable may direct a person to cease (or not start) doing a prohibited activity.

The gloss that the Claimant appears to seek to put on the section, namely that it should not be used where “no obstruction of the highway, trespass or public disorder is alleged” is not to be found in the section.

Furthermore, to the extent that the Claimant is personally affected by the operation of section 143 she has the option, as she has clearly demonstrated in these proceedings, of bringing a claim for damages against the police.

If her claims under the various torts listed above are successful then she will be entitled to damages.

Damages would be an adequate remedy in this case.

The balance of convenience is wholly in favour of maintaining the status quo and allowing the police to do their duty.


The Defendant therefore invites the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s application and to order that she pay the Defendants costs of and occasioned by the application.

In addition the Defendant invites the Court to record that the application is totally without merit and consider whether it is appropriate to make a civil restraint order.

When considering whether to make a civil restraint order the Court is invited to take into account the order made by Royce J. - in Claim No.HQ11 X00563 - where he dismissed an application for an injunction by the Claimant ( relating to the seizure of property by the police on 31 August 2011) as being “totally without merit”.

By way of directions for the progress of the substantive claim the Defendant asks for a stay of these proceedings until the determination of the criminal proceedings against the Claimant at West London Magistrates’ Court, those proceedings having arisen following her arrest on 2 April 2012.

In the alternative the Defendant asks for an extension of time in which to serve a Defence in light of the number of incidents raised in the Particulars of Claim and the amount of information the Defendant will need to obtain in order to properly set out his defence.

25 September 2012

Andrew Waters
5 Essex Court Temple

criminals laundering taxpayers money.

From: babs tucker
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: response in tucker v commissioner
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:26:09 +0100

Dear Mr Forshaw,

I am surprised that you are fighting the Injunction given it is your client who has sought to conceal and destroy my "reasonable excuse" that I only needed to give once.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE                   CLAIM NO: HQ12X03564





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                               CLAIMANTS SKELETON ARGUMENT ETC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Claimant says in response to the Defendant's Skeleton Argument etc.

It is the Claimants case that since January 16th 2012, the police (and Westminster City Council) have unlawfully concealed and destroyed the Claimants "reasonable excuse" under S143(8) so that neither they nor any court would or could consider it.

It is the Claimant's case that she can not - then - be penalised in any way for the police acting in bad faith etc.

NB: The Mayor Of London and C.UK have also unlawfully concealed the Claimant's reasonable excuse, since August 17th 2012 so another Civil Claim is pending.

1. Superintendent Jonathan Morgan from Charing Cross Police Station, acted unlawfully when (along with 50 + other police officers) he did not consider any "reasonable excuse" on January 16th 2012 and so therefore all the property that was taken on January 16th 2012 was returned without criminal proceedings being taken against the Claimant.

2. Inspector Wiles, PS Miller, PS Woods, PC Scott, PC Barley, PC Apthal, Senior Crown Prosecutors Robert Short and Phillip Lemoine, then unlawfully concealed and destroyed the Claimants "reasonable excuse" on April 2nd 2012, when they took all the campaign property that had just been returned, and maliciously prosecuted the Claimant over - one - tent without returning all the other property.

refer witness statements and custody record (to be provided by Defendant)

Therefore the police could not reasonably believe that they have any defence to the Claimant's claim, so need no stay or extension, in this civil claim, (where Mr Forshaw was asked long ago to get the documents) nor should the Claimant incur costs relating to the police acting unlawfully in concealing and destroying the Claimant's reasonable excuse.

The Defendant does not explain how he intends to lawfully continue with proceedings against the Claimant where the Defendant has unlawfully concealed and destroyed the Claimants "reasonable excuse".

The Claimant says an Injunction should now be imposed on the police (that covers all members of the Parliament Square Peace Campaign) because a jury could only conclude that the Claimant only needed to provide a reasonable excuse, once, on January 16th 2012, which covered all the campaign equipment.

The Claimant says any financial remedy long into the future, will not provide the necessary warmth and shelter that is necessary now, that the Claimant is lawfully entitled to.

An injunction was previously granted in Gallastegui v WCC.

An injunction was not granted in the claim HQ11X00563 where Westminster Council maliciously brought a claim against the Claimant in January 2011, before it had to be withdrawn by Westminster City Council in May 2012, (where it remains the Claimant has a counterclaim) because the Claimant could not prove (because proper disclosure was not provided at the time) that the police and Westminster City Council were working together to unlawfully remove the campaign.

This does not change the fact that the police are still being sued in HQ12X03564 for failing to provide a lawful excuse for the seizure of all the campaign on August 31st 2011 (which was not done under the PRSR Act 2011, so the police could not claim to be enforcing anything).

Of course now the Claimant can prove that Westminster Council and the police are working together to remove the campaign, because they have (for example) publicly admitted that is so.


Barbara Grace Tucker

Date: September 26th 2012.