The Court of Appeal has ruled against using climate change impacts as a defense in criminal damage cases, affecting groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. This decision aligns with efforts to restrict disruptive protests, while a separate case sees justice compromised by a police officer’s misconduct.
The Court of Appeal in London has issued a ruling that restricts eco-protesters from utilizing the impact of climate change as a defense in criminal damage trials. This decision significantly impacts environmental groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, indicating that only circumstances directly related to the act of damage—like time, place, and extent of harm—are relevant for discussion in court. Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr stated that a defendant’s opinions on climate change are deemed inadmissible. However, it was noted that jurors could be informed if the damage took place during a climate change protest.
The ruling did not fully exclude the possibility of a “lawful excuse” defense but advised judges to cautiously approach the complete removal of an issue from jury consideration, especially concerning a defendant’s intent. This comes after activists were previously acquitted for causing substantial damage to HSBC’s headquarters, sparking a debate on legal ramifications for climate protestors in the UK.
In a related development, the same court ruled against the use of the “consent” defense, where activists previously argued that property owners would consent to their actions if they were aware of the climate change implications. This change is seen as a major legal challenge for climate activists in England and Wales and is part of governmental efforts to limit disruptive protests. Attorney-general Victoria Prentis KC emphasized the decision’s role in bringing consistency to the law, clarifying that the right to protest does not extend to committing criminal damage.
In a separate incident, two convicted criminals are appealing their verdicts following the inappropriate conduct of a Metropolitan Police officer, identified as Officer A, who was observed driving away from court with a female juror. This breach led to the officer’s retirement prior to a potential dismissal for gross misconduct. The incident, which took place at the Harrow Crown Court, undermines public confidence in the trial process according to Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist. The officer, found to have lied about the contact which was later evidenced through phone data, has been barred from rejoining the police force, further stressing the importance of integrity in the judicial process.
