Our Take, with Doug Sheridan
The FT writes, climate activists prosecuted in England and Wales for criminal damage have lost the right to use an important defense that has led to a series of acquittals in such cases….
Our Take, with Doug Sheridan
The FT writes, climate activists prosecuted in England and Wales for criminal damage have lost the right to use an important defense that has led to a series of acquittals in such cases, following a landmark ruling from the Court of Appeal.
In the latest legal setback for campaign groups such as Just Stop Oil, the Court said evidence presented by defendants about the effects of climate change would be “inadmissible” in future cases.
Juries in several criminal damage cases have found activists not guilty after they argued they honestly believed the property owner would have given their consent to the action if only they truly understood what was being protested about, such as the effects of climate change.
A string of acquittals prompted the UK gov't to apply to the Court of Appeal for a review of the use of the tactic, known as the “consent” defense. Campaigners had described it as “the last remaining line of legal defense” for environmental activists charged.
The Court of Appeal found that “the political or philosophical beliefs” or the “wider motivations” of the defendant were “too remote” from the damage for the defense to be used.
In a summary of the judgment, Carr—the head of the judiciary in England and Wales—alongside two other judges wrote: “Evidence from the defendant about the facts of or effects of climate change would be inadmissible.”
Attorney-general Victoria Prentis KC brought the legal challenge as part of a broader government effort to deter disruptive protest at a time of rising civil disobedience over the environment. Ministers have claimed action is needed to prevent “violent and dangerous” behavior.
Activists and their lawyers have become increasingly concerned by a twin legislative and judicial clampdown on the right to protest. A series of gov't reforms include strengthening police powers to stop and search people.
Campaign group Defend Our Juries said the law was being used “to silence and repress those taking action to confront the extreme danger from climate breakdown... When will the legal profession and the judiciary wake up to what’s happening?”
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.”
Our Take 1: It’s astonishing to us that lower courts have allowed the argument to be used so successfully to date—but we don’t practice law in the UK (or anywhere else)… so maybe we’re just not schooled enough in the British legal system to understand how it could happen. Regardless, this ruling can only be good news for property owners in the UK who’ve had to endure some pretty serious damage done to their property during climate protests.
Out Take 2: How about that photo? Imaging believing shattering a large plate glass window by hammering a railroad spike into it would advance the cause of climate activism.