Cleared of all charges: Phantom Shoe Thrower is a free man

When you get right down to it, ACB is not a big fan of the Western system of justice. At best it has a tendency towards being sloppy and procedure obsessed, and towards paying more attention to the rights of the accused than to those their victims. And at worst it has proven to be utterly incapable of dealing with psychopaths and serial offender, and has thus allowed some of the vilest rapists, pedophiles and murderers walk free and commit offense after offense when any sane government would have lined them up against a wall and shot them.

However, in one particular case ACB is please to say that justice has been done, and that the system has worked. This being the case of Martin Jahnke: better known as "The phantom shoe thrower", whom was, this week, cleared of all charges laid against him by a British Magistrates court.

Jahnke?

Jahnke, a 27 year old biomedical research student, rose to international fame in February 2009 when he threw his shoes at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a speech by the latter at Britain's prestigious Cambridge University, in emulation of Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi who infamously threw his shoes at former US President George W Bush.



Jahnke also accused Premier Wen of being a dictator, and Cambridge University of being complicit by allowing him to speak unopposed.

The event, which was captured on film by several Western media companies, proved to be a substantial humiliation to both Wen and to the Chinese government as it occurred before an invited audience that was supposed to have been screened of all troublemakers, and because it served to further dispel the Beijing circulated myth that foreigners support Wen.

As a result, Jahnke was removed from the locale and was arrested for "Public Order Offenses".

Charges?

Jahnke was initially detained by UK security forces on charges of "breach of the peace" and "attempted assault" under claims of "Harassment" and causing "Alarm and Distress" to Premier Wen. On 9 February, UK prosecutors announced that Jahnke was to be tried on one count of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior with intent to cause fear of or to provoke violence" under section four: Articles 1 and 4 of the 1986 Public Order Act.

Such charges carry a maximum of six months of criminal confinement and a fine of up to £5,000.

The seriousness of the charges laid against Jahnke raised concern with China Watchers and Western Human organizations whom decried them as being as being disproportionate to Jahnke's actions. Particularly given that the shoe thrown by Jahnke did not come close to striking him, and because it would not have caused injury had it done so.

Accusations were also made that the charges laid against Jahnke were a thinly veiled attempt to stifle criticism of China, in direct contravention the the European convention on Human rights, which guarantees EU citizens the right to criticize both their own governments and the governments of foreign states.

Trial?

Jahnke's trial was originally scheduled for trial on 2 Jun 2009. However, proceedings were deemed likely to overlap with the politically sensitive 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and so were moved forwards by one day to avoid potential embarrassment to the Chinese government.

According to State prosecutors having Jahnke's verdict on the same day as the Massacre anniversary would have been 'concerning' and and could potentially create “security issues". Little further explanation was given. In the end the final verdict was given on 3 June 2009 rather than 4 june 2009.

Verdict?

On 3 June 2009, Jahnke was cleared of all charges, with Magistrate Ken Sheraton concluding that Wen had not suffered "alarm and distress" during the incident and that a single incident of political speech could not be constituted as "harassment". Magistrate Sheraton also concluded that Jahnke's actions did not constitute an act of violence, or an attempt to provoke "the fear of violence".

The verdict was welcomed by Jahnke and their legal team, as well as by China watchers who have voiced that it should however have been brought ot trial in the first place.

Interference?

Although political protests are not uncommon at Cambridge University, it is rare for a student to be charged either a criminal or civil offense.

Usually incidents are considered to be an internal matter to be dealt with by the Universities own authorities, and are not referred to the court system. Leading to claims that Jahnke's prosecution was politically motivated, and that it was the result of pressure from Beijing.

Tom Wainwright for the defense noted that over the past few years a number of senior UK politicians had been subject to more serious incidents that were never brought to trial. In 2001 Deputy Prime Minster John Prescott was struck by a raw egg thrown by a protester, and in 2009 Peter Mandelson the infamously gay Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was sprayed with green liquid by an environmental protester.

In the former case the egg thrower: Craig Evans was not charges, with the CPS considering that a prosecution "would serve no useful purpose". In the latter case the protester, Leila Deen, was cautioned and released without trial.

Although authorities deny that Beijing played any part in the prosecution China watchers note that all of the witnesses who testified to Jahnke causing "harassment, alarm and distress" to Wen were Chinese student who had come forward to give evidence only after having first been contacted by law firm acting on behalf of the Mainland embassy in London. A fact confirmed by America's Time Magazine.

Questions have also been asked regarding the way that Jahnke's case was 'fast tracked' through the legal system.

Usually cases such as Jahnke's are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): a state office that assesses the importance of a case, the likelihood of a prosecution succeeding given the evidence, and whether there is an actual need to prosecute.

Under normal circumstances it would be the CPS whom decides whether Jahnke would have been prosecuted. However, Jahnke's case was referred directly to a Magistrate court, bypassing the CPS all together. Again leading to claims that Jahnke's trial was politically motivated, with state authorities skipping sections of the legal system which would likely have dismissed the charges placed against him without contest.


When questioned CPS representatives were 'unable to explain' why the decision had been made to bypass them.

Cambridge?

For their part, authorities at Cambridge have confirmed that they consider Jahnke's protest to be a 'harmless expression of free speech', and that they will not be seeking to discipline him over it.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit