High court strikes out COPEX case against Peace News

What a contrast from a year ago, when Peace News carried the small item that offended COPEX organiser Julian Winkley. Having just bounced the National Peace Council into an apology, COPEX were in a litigious mood, threatening first Peace News, then CAAT, then individual letter-writers who had protested to the manager of the exhibition venue, then GreenLine, and finally the Peace Pledge Union. The unfortunate National Peace Council, having paid for one apology, then had to pay an extra sum because of the careless wording of an appeal for funds to pay for the first apology.

Now Commander Winkley tells us that he no longer works for COPEX International Ltd, and we have discovered that the company is no longer trading, so we don't know even if we and CAAT will be paid the legal costs we are owed. (We can't pursue the matter with COPEX's solicitors because they withdrew from the case just before our July court hearing, for reasons they won't disclose.)

***The case for the defence

From the outset, we expected to win this case. There was nothing in our short item that was not fair comment on COPEX's threats against the National Peace Council. We knew that some exhibitors at COPEX were willing to engage in shady deals exporting illegal equipment - such as leg cuffs and electro-shock batons. We knew that the visitors to COPEX included representatives of regimes notorious for torture and brutal methods of repression. That was the backbone of our case.

We took heart that COPEX were not taking legal action against Channel 4 for showing the TV documentary "The Torture Trial", whose reporters had filmed at COPEX where they also made contact with dealers in electro-shock batons. Indeed, shortly after we published, the "Torture Trail" producer won libel damages from the British government, no less, for ministerial remarks impugning the programme's veracity. When COPEX then settled out of court in their other libel case with Sporting Life (which had quoted the phrase "Torturer's Tesco" - Tesco is Britain's largest supermarket - rather than divulge the list of visitors to COPEX), we knew we were within sight of winning, since we would have demanded to see the same list of visitors had our case come to court.

***What did they expect to achieve?

It is hard, even in hindsight, to see what COPEX had expected to achieve by this flurry of legal action. Did they expect to gag peace groups? Well, that was hardly likely to work. In some perverse way, to get publicity for themselves to cement their reputation as leaders in the field? Considering how sensitive they are about this being a private event, that does not make sense. Was it true that Winkley was paranoid about a "red-green conspiracy" and was this unhinging him? That isn't for us to say. Perhaps COPEX simply got carried away. The Esher Times apologised for its report pretty instantly, as did the National Peace Council. At that time, COPEX were fighting a rearguard action to save their show in Bonn - where they suspended their local partner when he was exposed as a neo-Nazi. This is probably why their lawyers put such pressure on the NPC, and the NPC - not then an "incorporated" body, inexperienced with court cases, and not knowing enough about COPEX - decided it was less risky to settle. Even if COPEX thought other groups could be bullied, that hardly explains the extraordinary tactic of issuing libel writs again individual letter-writers to the exhibition venue. When CAAT heard its supporters were being held personally liable for writing protest letters, they found new reasons to dig in their heels and resist COPEX.

So we cannot explain the frenzy of libel threats last summer. What we know is that an outfit that had little intention of prosecuting a case to the finish has used Britain's libel laws to threaten and harass peace groups, newspapers and individual letter-writers. Even one of their former lawyers said that he was "not surprised" that the action against us had been struck out. Limited companies taking libel action are not normally obliged to put any money up front to guarantee the defendants' costs if the case can't be proved, yet if they do lose these same companies can simply dissolve and transfer their operations to another limited company, even a company with the same directors. So Peace News and CAAT are by no means certain to recover our legal costs because of the uncertain status of COPEX International. This year's British exhibition is being organised by COPEX's sister company, Osprey Exhibitions - which shares not only the same address (33a Church Road, Watford, Herts WD1 3PY) and phone line (01923 819301) but also directorships and personnel.

Winkley himself says he has nothing to do with this year's exhibition. Has he taken the advice of David McReynolds in New York, who wrote to him advising that he drop the libel case "and begin the long and difficult process of getting a life"? Well, the organisation he says he now works for (World EOD ~ again at the same address and phone number) features prominently in COPEX literature. He says he's now gone into the mine clearing business.

--------------------

For details of campaigns against the British COPEX at Sandown in November, contact: CAAT, 11 Goodwin Street, London N4 (tel 0171-281 0297).

[It seems that Peace News might need to appeal for more money to meet the continuing costs incurred by this case. We will let you know. However, our preferred option, if COPEX does not pay the costs it owes Peace News and the Campaign Against Arms Trade, would be to go into the the COPEX exhibition at Sandown in November and seize goods to an equivalent value. And what a bonfire we could have then!]