Squatting charges dropped against Gospel Oak housing protesters

Squatting charges dropped against Gospel Oak housing protesters Camden New Journal

A protest banner outside the Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Published: 29 August, 2014
By TOM FOOT

CRIMINAL charges ag­ainst a group of housing campaigners who had oc­cupied a council-ow­ned house that was sold off at auction were dr­op­ped halfway th­rough a trial at Highbury Magistrates’ Co­­urt.
District Judge Will­iams ruled on Tuesday that Yanis Nikou, 27, and Fatima Pita, 28, had “no case to answer” after their defence barrister ra­ised an “essential” leg­al argument on day one of the two-day hearing.
The pair had been ev­icted by police while pro­testing against the sale of 11 Southampton Road, Gospel Oak, by Camden Council at auction in the Grosvenor Hotel in February.
They were facing criminal charges under new squatting laws but the prosecution could not pr­ove they were in the building illegally be­cause the new owner of the building was “not known to the court”.
District Judge Will­i­ams ruled: “When the hammer falls, the property passes over to a new owner, and so does au­thority for permission to be in the property. I do not know who the new owner is. Therefore trespass cannot be provided. Sin­ce this is an essential eleme­nt in this case, I rule there is no case to an­s­wer.”
Mr Nikou and Ms Pita, part of a wider council housing campaign gr­oup, were evicted by police from So­uthampton Road – formerly the Party! Party! ch­ildren’s shop and two flats above – on February 25.
The court heard that a Camden Council official had contacted the police about “squatters” hours after the building was so­ld at auction with two other houses on the same parade for £2.4million.
But the activists had ar­gued that the new laws allowing evictions, kn­own as LAPSO Section 144, did not apply to them because they were not technically squatting in the building. 
The protesters said their system of swapping occupying duties on a 12-hour rota system meant they were only “occupying” the building for a “political pro­test”.
The court heard that there was no fridge in the building and that the ac­t­ivists were surviving purely on sandwiches from the food chain Eat.
Outside court, Mr Nik­ou said: “It is disapp­ointing in a way be­cause we wanted to test the law on this and in the end we have got off on a technicality. There is always next time th­ough.”
Both activists – represented by protest specialist barrister Owen Greenhall, acting for Bindmans solicitors – were awarded £10 each in travel ex­penses.