Residents oppose Olympics missile plan at the High Court At London's High Court today, the Defence Secretary is expected to be accused by the local residents' association of breaching Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect an individual's right to private life and peaceful enjoyment of their home. The residents' lawyers will also argue an equality impact assessment (EIA) should be carried out which takes into account the needs of disabled residents. Is the MoD right to place missiles on tower blocks during the Olympic Games? Mr Howe said: "It is incredible that the MoD think it acceptable to present women, children and men living in a block of flats in a densely-populated residential area of east London with the fait accompli of having a live high explosive missile salvo above their heads whilst they go about their daily chores and whilst they sleep at night. Security of the Olympics is, of course, extremely important but could the MoD not find any other way of protecting the Olympic village than by putting the lives of hundreds of innocent council tenants at risk by turning their homes into a military battlefield position? The MoD has had seven years to work out its security plans and it needs to rethink this issue swiftly. He suggested the Royal Engineers build a tower to house the missile battery. The missiles, including rapier and high-velocity systems, will be in place from mid-July, the MoD confirmed last week. A helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, will also be moored in the River Thames and RAF Typhoon jets will be stationed ready at RAF Northolt and Puma helicopters at a Territorial Army centre in Ilford. The other sites chosen to guard against any Olympic air threat are the Lexington Building in Tower Hamlets, east London; Blackheath Common and Oxleas Wood, both in south-east London; William Girling Reservoir in the Lea Valley reservoir chain in Enfield; and Barn Hill at Netherhouse Farm in Epping Forest. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the ground-based air defence systems were "just one part of a comprehensive, multi-layered air security plan" which would provide "both reassurance and a powerful deterrent." They would go ahead despite objections from a "small number of activists," he said. Patrick Mercer MP, a former infantry officer, told BBC Radio 4 there was a precedent with the placing of an anti-aircraft battery nearby in the the Blitz and there may have been an "oversight" in failing to consult with residents. But he said: "Diplomacy is clearly important, but not as important as the threat of a hijacked aircraft come on a very busy flight path and putting that aircraft into a target. That would be devastating. He added: "The national good is more important than the inconvenience these individuals will suffer for a few weeks." A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The Government has reserved the right to extend the airspace restrictions, and the deployment of military assets, including ground-based air defence, if an assessment of the threat level warrants it."