Ask a student on the street for their opinion on the tuition fee protests, and they might adamantly maintain their whole-hearted support. Ask another student, and he or she might just as adamantly denounce them.

Indeed, this holds for all the issues that have emerged in relation to the protests – from the effectiveness of non-violent resistance, to the actions of the police and legal system as a whole. The student body is both united and divided by our own response to the raised tuition fees and proposed cutbacks.

We should all, therefore, be wary of snap judgments and biased reporting.

With this in mind, the case of Christopher Fairless, a Cambridge student who was charged in relation to the protests, is by no means a black-and-white issue. In fact, it is a microcosm for the issue as a whole.

The facts are, by now, fairly well publicised. Christopher Fairless, a 24-year-old St. Edmund’s College graduate, was charged six months ago with obstructing an officer during the Senate House protests of November 24th. Only a few days before his hearing was due to take place, the charges against him were dropped on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The police officer in question, Sergeant Mark Kathro, claimed that Fairless had hindered his attempts to carry out his duty and the law, while Fairless argued that he had held onto Kathro as a means of “self-defence”.

The true events and details of what happened on that day are, when all is said and done, irrelevant. The truth is always relative, and the optimist in me believes that neither one was attempting any wrongdoing or illegality. The very nature of protests is one of confusion and disorder and the fact that the case has been dismissed due to “insufficient evidence” reflects this.

Regardless, the case raises several interesting questions about legality in this context. Was the lawbreaking of certain students in the heat of the protests justifiable; does freedom of speech transcend legal restrictions? Should it?

As far as the justice system itself goes, might we see legal ramifications of these protests, and this case, in the future? I wonder how soon the legislation on protestors, protesting, and handling protests, will be reviewed, and whether it will be rectified.

And how will Christopher Fairless view the justice system now? Is he vindicated or simply victimised? Let’s not forget that he and his family have spent half a year contemplating the possibility of a jail sentence, and the subsequent possibility of expulsion from Cambridge and a criminal record. Six months is a long time considering that his belief in the importance of our education might mean the discontinuation of his own.

He is quoted as saying: “I am very pleased this is over.” Hardly surprising. For prosecutors to wait until now to admit to “insufficient evidence” seems bewildering. If the evidence was insufficient, which is very unsurprising in light of the aforementioned chaotic protests, should it have been brought to trial at all? Crown Prosecution Services claim that the initial charge was made without their consultation, while Fairless maintains he suspects that the police were “…just keen to get some convictions out of this,” in response to public criticism of their methods.

On the other hand, the Defend Education Petition, signed by Fairless and hundreds of other Cambridge students, expressing support for the November student protests, claims that the actions of the police were “disproportionately violent,” to the alleged offences of the student protestors.

However – and the point has, I know, been made countless times – millions of pounds worth of damage to government buildings, and a general sense of anarchic smashing, is in turn disproportionate to the central ethos of the protest. To incur public reparation costs as a response to unwelcome cutbacks seems paradoxical.

It will be interesting to see whether the police are granted more freedom to use force as a method of control, or whether their hands will be further tied by the very laws that they are trying to uphold. Undeniably, the alleged “brutality” and use of “disproportionate force” has not only succeeded in inciting an even greater fury in an already riled student population, it has also invited public scrutiny and embarrassment.

One can’t help but pose the question that, in a country of daily crime, from shoplifting to shooting, whether police resources might not have been better spent elsewhere.

Or will it be the protestors who see the fruit of their labours in the form of harsher crowd control?  Has the future of non-violent resistance been threatened? Who will triumph – policeman or protestor?  If previous clashes are anything to go by, it’s anybody’s game.

Opinion on the allegations against Fairless, as well as their dismissal, is as divided as opinion on all other questions raised. Interestingly, St. Edmund’s College was unable to comment because several representatives – including the Senior Tutor’s assistant – had no prior knowledge of the case whatsoever.

Regardless of what you believe, I think even the most vehement anti-protest protestors can be glad that Fairless has avoided being charged and incarcerated, which would have deprived the country of a bright mind that it cannot afford to lose. On a personal, perhaps superficial level, I can’t help but feel relieved that Christopher Fairless will not be spending the summer in a jail cell.