8 March 2000 Anne Lee PO Box 105, Harrogate, HG3 2FE

Northallerton Branch Office 159-160 High Street Northallerton North Yorkshire DL7 8JZ Switchboard: 01609-785500 Facsimie: 01609-785530 DX No.: 61645 Northallerton Our Reference: DT Your Reference: BTCOFM 0007 NSA xliv

Dear Madam,

Thank you for your letter of 25 February, enclosing a copy of the letter to Mr Best MP.

I am not willing to prosecute you for the purposes of providing a teest case on the byelaws, but I am willing to explain my reasons for the decisions not to prosecute byelaw offences.

The decision whether to continue with any prosecution begun by the police or to advise whether a prosecution should be started has to be made by the Crown Prosecution Service, and in the case of prosecutions for alleged breach of the RAF Menwith Hill byelaws, I have made those decisions.

In coming to decisions on those cases, I have to act in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and I believe that I have done so in each case.

The Code identifies two tests which any case must pass before a prosecution should be begun or continued. These are the evidential sufficiency test and the public interest test.

Evidential sufficiency means that there is a realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction on the evidence available. On the files which have been referred to me by the MoD Police, I have been satisfied of that. I proceed on the basis that the validity of the byelaws has been fully tested in the proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division in which the defendants had full opportunity to put their case, and did so through counsel.

The public interest test means that not every alleged criminal offence must be prosecuted. It means, as I understand it, that there is some benefit to the general public in terms of maintaining law and order.

I have considered individually the facts of each case referred to me. The fact that I have come to the same conclusion in each case reflects the similarity of the cases.

Factors which I have taken into account are generally these:

that the incident is a minor one, deliberately brought about by the defendant as part of a non-violent campaign of civil disobedience

that the alleged criminal behaviour has caused only minor nuisance

that prosecuting the defendant is unlikely to stop future offending

Yours faithfully,

David Tucker
Senior Crown Prosecutor