UK
Eco-activists’ right to protest under review after court clears group of smashing HSBC windowsCharles Hymas
Thu, 21 December 2023
An activist from Extinction Rebellion uses a chisel to smash a window at HSBC in Canary Wharf
- JOHN SIBLEY/Reuters
The Attorney General has ordered a review of eco-activists’ rights to protest after a group of nine were cleared of smashing bank windows.
Victoria Prentis has asked Court of Appeal judges to rule on whether eco-protesters can 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 Extinction Rebellion (XR) protesters who caused £500,000 worth 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, whose property they damaged, would have consented to it if it had known more about the impact of climate change.
The review by the Court of Appeal judges will not reverse the acquittals in their case but if they decide lawful consent is not a legitimate defence, it will mean defendants in similar cases will not in future be able to rely on it to justify any criminal damage.
The Attorney General has ordered a review of eco-activists’ rights to protest after a group of nine were cleared of smashing bank windows.
Victoria Prentis has asked Court of Appeal judges to rule on whether eco-protesters can 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 Extinction Rebellion (XR) protesters who caused £500,000 worth 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, whose property they damaged, would have consented to it if it had known more about the impact of climate change.
The review by the Court of Appeal judges will not reverse the acquittals in their case but if they decide lawful consent is not a legitimate defence, it will mean defendants in similar cases will not in future be able to rely on it to justify any criminal damage.
The group claimed the bank would have consented to the damage if it had known more about the impact of climate change
- JOHN SIBLEY/REUTERS
It follows a similar referral to the court over the acquittal of four protesters who toppled the Bristol statue of the slave trader Edward Colston. 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.
Lawful excuse defence
The nine women acquitted after vandalising the HSBC building are among several environmental campaigners who have been cleared in the past year after deploying the “lawful excuse” defence.
Sally Hobson, prosecuting in the HSBC case, told jurors that the defendants were guilty of unlawful conduct. “We say that, whatever the purpose behind them causing the damage, there was no lawful excuse for doing so.”
Under the Criminal Damage Act of 1971, a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another… shall be guilty of an offence.
But it allows for a “lawful excuse” if the defendant believes that the people who could give their consent to the damage “would have so consented to it…if they had known of the…damage and its circumstances”.
So, for example, it would be lawful to smash the window of a parked car, or a house, if people inside were in danger. It does not matter whether the defendant’s belief was justified or not, provided it was honestly held.
Ms Prentis said: “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the Court of Appeal considering this issue and would like to emphasise that, regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process.”
It follows a similar referral to the court over the acquittal of four protesters who toppled the Bristol statue of the slave trader Edward Colston. 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.
Lawful excuse defence
The nine women acquitted after vandalising the HSBC building are among several environmental campaigners who have been cleared in the past year after deploying the “lawful excuse” defence.
Sally Hobson, prosecuting in the HSBC case, told jurors that the defendants were guilty of unlawful conduct. “We say that, whatever the purpose behind them causing the damage, there was no lawful excuse for doing so.”
Under the Criminal Damage Act of 1971, a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another… shall be guilty of an offence.
But it allows for a “lawful excuse” if the defendant believes that the people who could give their consent to the damage “would have so consented to it…if they had known of the…damage and its circumstances”.
So, for example, it would be lawful to smash the window of a parked car, or a house, if people inside were in danger. It does not matter whether the defendant’s belief was justified or not, provided it was honestly held.
Ms Prentis said: “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the Court of Appeal considering this issue and would like to emphasise that, regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment