The way in which they have tackled it so far (the question at the moment is how to deal with the prosecution, it will be some time before the defence presents its case which will open up new possibilities) is illuminating. They have focussed upon exposing the actual workings of the bourgeois state as it has impinged on their case. It could be argued that the fact that they have chosen to approach the problem in this way reflects, in part, their libertarian politics in that what is exposed is that state 'in itself rather than the relationship between the state and the class nature of society, It must be recognised, however, that given the situation in which they are operating it is difficult to see a more effective way in which they can HECTOIS.
Their method has taken two forms. Firstly, they have tried to challenge the ethos of the courtroom. They have to some extent broken down its traditions and have certainly destroyed its normal atmosphere in the course of this trial. Secondly, in their crossexaminations, they have tried to put the state on trial, as it were. Precisely how they have done this can only be seen by tracing the course of the trial.
The article in The Red Mole 41 showed EARLY STAGES Right from the beginning the defence was able to break the court atmosphere. Constantly, friends were coming in and out giving encouragement and advice to the Eight. The stilted language, attitudes and dress of legal formality were thrown overboard by the defence. However, some of the early moves of the defence were unsuccessful. Two of these were particularly important. First. they were unable to get Habershon (in charge of police investigations into the Angry Brigade bombings) out of the court.
They requested that he should leave on the grounds that he talks to witnesses and was generally behaving in a way that made the trial an unfair one, even in the context of bourgeois democracy. At the time of writing, Habershon is still there. Secondly, the defence had sought to involve the jury more concretely in the trial and applied twice for the jury to be allowed to ask questions verbally whenever they felt like it. This was not permitted.
The trial started warming up in the second week when the defence crossWithin its machinery there are roughly three evidence primarily about the Italian Consulate Manchester' bomb. What was politically important about this cross-examination was that not only did the defence point toward fabrication but they also took the opportunity to ask questions about the workings of the Special Branch. They got Haywood to admit to his role of keeping tabs on left wing organisations, to elaborate upon how raids on left wing addresses were useful in that one could connect people together (address books, etc.) Not that we didn't know this before, but it was clear that the tables were turningthat it was the police who were on trial and the 'defence' were going on the offensive. Haywood really got a hammering in cross-examination. It was in this spirit that the trial continued.
THE REVEALING QUESTION OF BAIL.
During the course of the trial Anna Mendelson and Hilary Creek applied for bail: Anna because she was very ill, and Hilary because of the strain of trying to conduct a defence while living in Holloway. They were not allowed bail unless it was out of London. This, Anna and Hilary argued, was impractical because of travelling to see solicitors, the other defendants, etc. And why could they not get bail in London?
James (the judge)els there any objection to the address (in London)?
Habershon: Yes, my lord, I have noted that the address is in N.1. and during our investigations into this case, we have discovered that there are many people of a similar ideology who live in Islington Holloway: where Hilary prepares her defence 'SCIENTIFIC" EVIDENCE.
One interesting facet of courtroom tradition, which has rarely been challenged, is the cult of 'scientific expertise'. An aura of indisputability surrounds forensic 'experts and state employed 'scientists", and their evidence is rarely challenged values of immigrant groups". In other wordswith them negates any illusions one might have about the reliability of such evidence. An explosives 'expert', Lidstone, was trying to prove that a whole number of bombings formed an 'associated set, but the defence proved again and again that the evidence he gave was circular: it assumed precisely what it was supposed to prove. For example:
Defence: On what basis do you say it was probable that this second explosion had. TNT in it? You've got no scientific basis, have you?
Lidstone: The only basis that it might have had TNT in it is what appears to be the logical one, that generally speaking, when more than one bomb is used, you Find the same explosive in both.
Yet it was the connection between the two bombs which they were supposed to be proving!
SOLIDARITY What attitude should revolutionary Marxists take with regard to this trial. It should be absolutely clear that we are in solidarity with the Stoke Newington Eight!
Such a solidarity position is quite independent of whether or not they are innocent of the charges. We are in solidarity with any people who are on trial because of their commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Whether or not they are innocent they make no bones about that commitment and there is no doubt that it is their anti-capitalist activities which have brought them to the Old Bailey. To solidarise with these people isn't to accept their politics (there will be a If You Want Peace, Prepare for War in a future issue of the Red Mole). On the contrary, the only criticisms of fellow those who show themselves clearly to be comrades in the same struggle.
Spike For the trial to be succes/ul, from our poin of view, it must go on for a long time, be cause of the meticulousness with which the defence has approached it. To make this possible, the Defence Committee needs concrete support, e.g. money and also physical presence on pickets to maximise the political impact which the committee is seeking to make.
Communications ete., to Stoke Newington 8 Defence Group, Box 359, 240, Camden High Street, London, N.W.1.
The committee put out bulletins on the progress of the trial and also a pamphlet If You Want Peace, Prepare for War. They are available from Compendium Books, Camden High Street.
of Inland Revenue who had rejected him without interview for a clerical job. The reasons
----- pull-quotes -----
now without much notice. Its most important feature is the way in which the eight, charged with conspiracy to bomb, have tried to make their defence a political one
critical examination of the politics of the defence committee in a review of
revolutionaries which will be taken seriously by those revolutionaries can come from