Six people are on trial at the moment at Maidstone Crown Court for criminal damage, having painted slogans on Kingsnorth power station last year in protest against climate change, and will be defending themselves on the basis of “lawful excuse”, criminal damage only being an offence if done without lawful excuse, the law allowing for breaking down doors to save kids from flames, cutting people out of cars and so on. Their argument must be either that their protest is aimed at saving lives and protecting property that will be damaged by climate change; or that the owners of Kingsnorth would agree with them and forgive the damage they caused, if only they knew the truth about climate change.
There’s room for doubt about whether this can really amount to lawful excuse in law, but that may be beside the point: the jury will determine guilt. A number of protesters have been acquitted of criminal damage in the past, running the same defence: there were the women acquitted at Liverpool Crown Court in 1996 having damages Hawk jets; in 2001 two anti-Trident protesters were cleared of conspiracy to cause criminal damage in Manchester (having been represented by the current Solicitor General, if I remember right) and the Guardian article I’ve linked to gives other examples of similar acquittals; there was also the acquittal at Norwich Crown Court in 2000 of Greenpeace protesters including Lord Melchett, who had destroyed GM crops.
Greenpeace has a blog with updates on the trial, and is Twittering about it, too.
Could they really be exonerated of guilt based on something that is yet to happen, or on the reasoning that the victim is too ignorant (by “ignoring” the “truth”) to understand that the perpetrators are right?
Based on this couldn’t almost anyone argue not guilty for all sorts of criminal damage, vandlism and other crimes? Would painting an anarchy symbol on somebody’s wall also stand up to this?
Let’s see, Rebecca! You might or might not agree that in the circumstances they had “lawful excuse” for causing the damage, but it’s up to the jury, ultimately.
Here is surely a prosecution which will serve to highlight the cause of the defendants more than their original protest could have ever done.
Also, the wording of section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is such that the court is not considered with whether there actually was a lawful excuse (objectively speaking). The issue is what was the state of mind of the defendant at the time.
The defendant would be entitled to acquittal if the jury are persuaded (balance of probabilities) that the defendant honestly believed there to be other property (i) in need of immediate protection and (ii) that the means adopted would be reasonable in all the circumstances.
Personally, I think the difficult word for these defendants in this is IMMEDIATE. Just what else was there which the defendant might have believed to be in need of immediate protection?
It’s angling for a perverse verdict and we were running it with success at various London Mags Courts in the 80’s.
I wonder how many will chose to represent themselves?
Certainly, we shall see. And I do not mean to state agreement or disagreement with their cause, this just sounds like “my opinion is more valid than yours and therefore my actions are justified”. It hardly seems like a legal argument.
It certainly looks like counsel are after a perverse verdict which juries are entitled to return. However, it is very difficult to see just what property was in need of IMMEDIATE protection or, for that matter, how the painting of a chimney could offer immediate protection to anything!!
… and they got the verdict they wanted – by a majority.
How does this work in terms of specific offences? In other words, could I beat up a climate change denier and then say that I was trying to prevent him from destroying the world?