On a cold November afternoon in 2021, the three of us used metal lock-ons to chain ourselves together and block a quiet, private road near Gatwick airport, outside Brook House immigration removal centre, to prevent people being forcibly removed to Jamaica.
We took action in solidarity with and support of people the government was trying to rip away from their children, partners and loved ones, while some were also physically resisting their deportation inside Brook House. We were arrested and charged with causing a public nuisance. We denied that and told the jury we felt we had a moral responsibility to act. The jury members appear to have empathised. They acquitted us. That speaks volumes.
Living in this country and under a government proactively working to perpetuate racism, violence and other prejudice against marginalised people, there is an obligation to resist, in whatever way you can. That was our motivation.
We now know that 41 of the 50 people the government tried to deport to Jamaica on that flight are still in the UK, and many of them have sent us grateful messages of support. Mothers have thanked us for resisting on behalf of their sons, while others have said that knowing there were people out there willing to stand up for them meant so much at a dark and lonely time – and that they can now enjoy their lives with their families.
We were initially charged with “aggravated trespass” – an offence with a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment, tried in a magistrates court. However, a few weeks before our initial trial, the Crown Prosecution Service – undoubtedly influenced by the government’s authoritarian anti-protest rhetoric and legislation – charged us with the much more serious offence of causing a “public nuisance”.
This archaic common law offence can be tried in the crown court and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This was an overtly aggressive attempt by the government to criminalise protest against its violent, racist detention and deportation regime, and any act of solidarity with those it harms.
At our two-week trial, we argued that what we did was necessary to prevent serious harm to families and communities targeted for detention and deportation. We gave detailed accounts of this country’s profoundly harmful detention and deportation regime, including the history of violent behaviour and mistreatment of detainees by detention centre guards, specifically at Brook House, as well as the deaths of Jimmy Mubenga, on a deportation flight from Heathrow in 2010, and Joy Gardner, who died in 1993 after being wrapped in 13 feet of tape and a belt by five police officers who had come to her home to deport her.
We told the jury that many of those meant to be on the flight had been in the UK since they were children – some as young as three months – and that many had their own children here. Some of them have family connections with the Windrush generation. Others had allegedly been subjected to modern slavery and trafficking. Even according to the Home Office’s own oppressive and restrictive policies, many of them should not have been considered for deportation in the first place.
We explained the huge barriers to legal advice and representation for people in detention, which often leads to vital last-minute legal challenges, and how our action – and other direct action, such as that taken by the Stansted 15 – gives people crucial time for their legal challenges to be submitted and heard, sometimes with just minutes to spare.
We gave this detailed evidence to the jury in order to counter the government and mainstream media’s rhetoric – often racist misinformation – about migrants and deportations. The prosecution didn’t even dispute our evidence about the cruelty and brutality of immigration detention and deportation, and instead focused on trying to punish us for resisting it.
The trial judge ruled that none of our reasons was good enough to provide a legal “defence” to the charge of causing a public nuisance. For this reason, and because the prosecution did not contest our evidence, the judge refused to let the jury hear from a witness with a harrowing experience of being held in Brook House and resisting being taken for deportation on the November 2021 flight (and who is still here in the UK). The judge also refused to hear evidence from experts on the UK detention and deportation regime, including an expert witness from the official Brook House inquiry.
Despite this, the jury, having heard our evidence, refused to adhere to the government’s rhetoric. They acquitted all three of us – and were visibly emotional when giving the verdicts.
This case comes at a time when compassion, solidarity and any attempts to hold the government accountable are being criminalised by a wave of draconian anti-protest laws, and it shows the power and value of collective action, resistance and solidarity. But this government’s authoritarianism must be called what it is. These oppressive laws, prosecutions and sentences are intended to suppress anti-government, anti-police and anti-monarchy sentiments. They are designed to prevent people dissenting against the many widespread injustices in this country, including the current cost of living crisis, child poverty, structural racism and climate inaction.
Awaiting trial since 2021 has been at times stressful, intense and exhausting, but we have been moved by the solidarity and support people have shown us, as well as our incredible legal representation. We urge people to continue to resist the UK’s racist and violent border regime – by showing up on the streets and in our communities. Make sure you are aware of the potential consequences, and how you (along with others) can deal with them. And know that there are many roles in these movements that are non-arrestable, and these are just as important as those that involve riskier action.
The incredibly heavy-handed response from those in power just shows how concerned they are about how effective we can be at successfully preventing deportations, immigration raids, evictions, stop and search, new fossil fuel extraction and arms production. As the saying goes: direct action gets the goods. We must continue this resistance.
Griff Ferris is a researcher and campaigner; Rivka Micklethwaite is a trainee midwife; and Callum Lynch provides legal advice and information to members of the public at a human rights organisation
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
English (US)