DEAR News Of The Area,

I am saddened to hear that the application for a reduction of restrictions on the bail requirements for Mark Graham have been denied and, therefore, he is still restricted in his vital work.

Something is wrong here.

My understanding of the law is that everyone has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and that, therefore, bail conditions should not be a punishment in and of themselves, other than in cases of the most severe crimes.

I also understand that the law says we all have the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention.

In both circumstances the law seems to have failed Mark Graham.

Like Mark, or not, agree with saving our environment, or not, I think we all need to look at this recent verdict, where multiple academics and others have proven the harm the restrictions have on Mark, have been ignored by our judiciary.

What is going on here?

How might this affect any of us when someone in a Government department does not like the noise we are making?

When Mark proves innocent of the charges I sincerely hope the compensation he receives is generous and that those who have conspired to stop his vital work are held to account.

Sincerely,
Cheryl COOPER.