Regina (on the application of Robert Lewis Manson) (Claimant) v. The Bow Street Magistrates' Court (First Defendant) and Carmarthen Justices (Second Defendant)

Court	High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Great Britain (UK)
Case number	CO/3028/2003
Decision title	Judgement
Decision date	15 October 2003
Parties	Regina (on the application of Robert Lewis Manson) The Bow Street Magistrates' Court Carmarthen Justices
Categories	Crime of aggression
Keywords	Crime of aggression; Iraq; (universal) jurisdiction
Links	Judgement

Summary

In March 2003, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, peace activists, entered the bases of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and tried to disable the planes located there. They acted in an attempt to prevent a crime by the U.K. and the U.S., namely the preparation of a war against Iraq. Two other activists, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, also entered the RAF base. All the activists were charged in the U.K. In their defence, they claimed that the actions of the U.K. and the U.S. were illegal. Their defence was rejected by the English courts because the alleged crime was a crime under international law but not under English criminal law.

Procedural history

Peace activists sought for issuance of summons against the U.K. Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence for the commission of crimes against peace consisting of planning for war against Iraq, preparing for war, initiating and waging war. However, Timothy Workman, the Senior District Judge sitting at the Bow Street Magistrates' Court, refused to issue summonses against those persons.

Robert Lewis Manson, representing the activists, sought permission to challenge this refusal.

Related developments

On 29 March 2006, the House of Lords held that the crime of aggression is a crime under customary international law, yet not under English law. This followed from the principle that customary crimes cannot be incorporated into the English legal system without statutory enactment.

Legally relevant facts

In March 2003, two peace activists, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, entered the Royal Air Force (RAF) base in Gloucestershire, England, and other military installations. They committed acts of criminal damage by using hammers and bolt cutters to damage fuel tankers and trailers. Two other activists, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, also entered the RAF base.

The activists were all charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage, aggravated trespass and attempted arson. In their defence, the activists claimed that they aimed at preventing the preparation of a crime by the U.K. and the U.S., namely the crime of aggression of war, which was illegal in their opinion.

Robert Lewis Manson was a U.K. solicitor that represented the activists.

Core legal questions

Did English courts have jurisdiction over acts committed outside England and Wales?

Were the crimes of planning, preparing and initiating a war of aggression incorporated into English criminal law?

Court's holding and analysis

The High Court of Justice dismissed the petition of Robert Lewis Manson. In respect of the claim that the U.K. Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence were waging war, the Court held that English courts had no jurisdiction over acts committed outside England and Wales. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was ‘no basis for criticising the decision of the District Judge to refuse to issue a summons’ (para. 3).

In respect of the claim of planning, preparing and initiating war, the Court did not express an opinion as to their status under customary international law but held that the crimes of planning, preparing and initiating a war of aggression have not been ‘incorporated in any way into English criminal law’ (para. 4).

Further analysis

D. M. Ferencz, ‘Introductory Note to United Kingdom House of Lords:R V Jones, Et Al’, International Legal Materials, July 2006, Vol. 45(4), pp. 988-991.

C. Villarino Villa, ‘The Crime of Aggression before the House of Lords’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, September 2006, Vol. 4(4), pp. 866-877.