On Thursday 22nd June Yorkshire Forward took 30 persons unknown who had established a social centre in 111 Matilda Street to the County Court for Trespass. In hearing the case you actually dared to hope at one point that there might be some kind of outcome in Matilda's favour. But as ever the judge sided with the property owners regardless of the arguments put forward and legal technicalities raised. I wasn't able to get notes down of all the arguments made, but hopefully the bits I can recall will give you a small flavour of the case.
It started on what felt like dodgy footing when the judge confessed he hadn't been able to consult relevant reference books for the case. The Yorkshire Forward solicitor (helpfully!) gave the magistrate a copy of a past case as a reference. But things looked up when examining the arguments put forward by Yorkshire Forward and in particular the muddle surrounding the terms they were trying to access the building in the previous week and the fact that a representative from Yorkshire Forward handed a key handed over a key to Matilda people. He seemed to focus for a time on the access to the rest of the building for the tenant, Adrenalin Studios, and the implications of this for the case.
As to be expected Yorkshire Foward's central argument resorted to evicting the Trespassers for reasons of Health and Safety, which did not seem to square with their intention to let the current tenant, Adrenalin Studios, remain in the building. However they argued that they will be building a corridor to to the studios, to prevent access to the rest of the building. Yorkshire Forward refused to acknowledge the work that had been done on Matilda by the collective to make the building safer, such as repairing loose windows.
The judge refused to explore issues around the legality of the ownership of the building and was content for this case that Yorkshire Forward were the owners of the building. However he accepted Matilda's point that legal approach taken by Yorkshire Forward was not the right way to proceed. Things at this point were looking hopeful and it continued to be as the judge start to sum up, but then he simply declared that people should not be in the Matilda Street building and that was it, they had to go.
It was great that people had turned out to support those representing the Matilda collective in court, and about ten of us accompanied the representatives in court.
As to be expected Yorkshire Foward's central argument resorted to evicting the Trespassers for reasons of Health and Safety, which did not seem to square with their intention to let the current tenant, Adrenalin Studios, remain in the building. However they argued that they will be building a corridor to to the studios, to prevent access to the rest of the building. Yorkshire Forward refused to acknowledge the work that had been done on Matilda by the collective to make the building safer, such as repairing loose windows.
The judge refused to explore issues around the legality of the ownership of the building and was content for this case that Yorkshire Forward were the owners of the building. However he accepted Matilda's point that legal approach taken by Yorkshire Forward was not the right way to proceed. Things at this point were looking hopeful and it continued to be as the judge start to sum up, but then he simply declared that people should not be in the Matilda Street building and that was it, they had to go.
It was great that people had turned out to support those representing the Matilda collective in court, and about ten of us accompanied the representatives in court.
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Legal bits...
24.06.2006 12:23
Concerned
Nothing to worry about here...
24.06.2006 17:44
I was amused to see that costs were awarded against 'Persons Unknown'. Whilst it's quite possible to evict 'Persons Unknown' from the building, collecting your costs might be a bit more tricky. I hope that those who stood up to represent the Matilda Collective havn't made themselves liable for those costs.
The outcome was of course inevitable and the law is quite clear. Squatted space will always be precarious in nature and I think the future for the social centre movement can only be in legally occupied (donated or rented) space. At least YF have chosen to use the legal process and to allow those present time to remove their posessions rather than resorting to illegal force (which might have been cheaper) to clear the building.
RVR800