Climate protesters lose legal battle over right to cause damage
Eco-activists’ claims that they have a right to cause damage as part of their protests have been rejected by Court of Appeal judges.
Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, asked the Court to rule on whether eco-protesters could use a defence of “lawful excuse” to cause criminal damage to banks, businesses and private property and avoid conviction at trial.
It follows the acquittal of a protester from a climate action group known as Burning Pink who threw paint at the offices of Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Friends of the Earth, plus the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties, causing damage that cost more than £36,000 to repair.
The protester was cleared after claiming that she honestly believed that the owners of the damaged property would have consented to it if they had known more about the impact of climate change.
However, on Monday, three Court of Appeal judges ruled that protesters cannot use such a defence, as political beliefs were “too remote” to be classed as a “lawful excuse” if “they had known of the…damage and its circumstances”.
GB News hit by XR protest
GB News was targeted on Monday after Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists hurled fake oil outside the channel’s main studio in London.
Protesters threw the paint outside the entrance of the building in west London, as another masked activist sat on top of a tripod dangling a Pinocchio-like puppet.
Activists branded GB News a “puppet TV station” for the fossil fuel industry. GB News said it would not comment when asked about the demonstration.
In the Court of Appeal, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice William Davis and Mr Justice Garnham ruled that “circumstances” of damage could include the “time, place and extent”, but not the reasons behind a protest.
Giving a summary of the judgement, Baroness Carr said: “The circumstances would not include the political or philosophical beliefs of the person causing the damage.
“They would not include the reasoning or wider motivations for the damage. These matters are too remote from the damage. Evidence from the defendant about the facts of or effects of climate change would be inadmissible.”
Ms Prentis said: “Climate change is an important issue and while the right to protest must be protected, it does not give a right to cause serious criminal damage no matter how strongly held a belief is.
“Today’s judgement is important as it ends any uncertainty over when a person has a lawful excuse to cause damage because they honestly believed the property owner would consent. It clarifies that the importance or merits of a protest are not the ‘circumstances’ of damage caused during that protest.
“It is essential that these cases are dealt with consistently, so we welcome the court’s ruling which will ensure consistency and give judges much needed clarity in this important area of law.”
The judgement will not reverse the acquittal but it will mean that protesters will no longer be able to use “lawful excuse” as a defence.
The argument was used to secure the acquittal of XR protesters who caused £500,000 of criminal damage to HSBC’s London headquarters. The nine women, all members of XR, sang as they shattered windows with hammers and chisels at 7am on April 22, 2021. They were cleared after claiming that they honestly believed that the bank would have consented if it had known more about the impact of climate change.
It follows a similar separate referral to the court over the acquittal of four protesters who toppled the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol.
The Court of Appeal ruled that their defence – that convicting them would be a breach of their human right to protest – was not legitimate in cases of “significant” criminal damage. Their acquittal was not reversed.
