Court rules that protesters’ beliefs do not excuse criminal damage

The Court of Appeal recently ruled that protesters accused of criminal damage cannot use a legal argument known as the “last line of defence” against prosecution. The judges determined that protesters cannot claim at trial that they honestly believed a property owner would have consented to damage caused under certain circumstances, such as the impact of climate change. The judges emphasized that political beliefs cannot be considered a lawful excuse for criminal damage, stating that they are too remote from the act of damage itself. This decision came after several protesters were found not guilty of criminal damage, prompting a review of the legal argument.

The Court of Appeal judges stated that the “circumstances” under which the damage occurred could include factors such as the time, place, and extent of the damage, as well as the fact that it occurred during a protest. However, they clarified that the reasons behind the damage, as well as the political or philosophical beliefs of the individual causing the damage, cannot be considered as part of the circumstances. They also emphasized that evidence about the facts or effects of climate change would be inadmissible when considering the defence. This ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving protesters accused of criminal damage.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeal by Attorney General Victoria Prentis after a protester, known as XX, was cleared of conspiracy to damage property. Government barristers argued that protesters should not have a “carte blanche” to damage property and that the law was being applied too broadly. On the other hand, lawyers for XX claimed that whether the defence could be used should be a decision for the jury. Proponents of the legal argument, including Tim Crosland of climate charity Plan B, considered it the last line of defence for protesters to justify their actions as part of a protest.

Following the ruling, Baroness Carr affirmed that the law was not intended to give protesters free rein to publicize their cause through the criminal courts. She stated that the circumstances in which damage occurred do not include the merits, urgency, or importance of the protest itself, nor the perceived need to draw attention to a cause or situation. Therefore, the ruling clarifies that the importance or merits of a protest are not grounds for a lawful excuse for causing damage. The outcome of this ruling will impact future cases involving protesters and the defences available to them.

Attorney General Victoria Prentis welcomed the clarity provided by the Court of Appeal’s ruling, stating that while the right to protest must be protected, it does not give individuals the right to cause serious criminal damage. Prentis emphasized that the ruling clarifies that the importance or merits of a protest do not constitute the “circumstances” under which damage occurred. This decision ensures consistency in handling cases involving protesters and provides judges with clarity in determining lawful excuses for damaging property. The ruling reinforces that protesters must abide by the law, even when advocating for important causes like climate change.