Eco protesters cannot claim a 'climate emergency' as justification for vandalism, the UK's most senior judge rules

Eco-protesters accused of criminal damage cannot claim a ‘climate emergency’ justifies their actions, the country’s most senior judge has ruled.

In a judgement handed down by the Court of Appeal yesterday, Lady Chief Justice Carr ruled protesters could not say they honestly believed a property owner would consent to criminal damage if they were fully aware of its ‘circumstances’.

Lady Chief Justice Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Garnham, said political beliefs of protesters were not relevant when it came to determining whether or not criminal damage was justified.

The decision comes after an eco-protester – who cannot be named for legal reasons, but referred to as ‘C’- was acquitted following a crown court trial where she was accused of damaging several offices.

The court heard she was part of an Extinction Rebellion splinter group who threw pink paint on offices belonging to Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Christian Aid and Friends of the Earth, in July 2020.

Eco-protesters accused of criminal damage cannot claim a ‘climate emergency’ justifies their actions, Lady Chief Justice Carr has ruled (File Photo)

Lady Chief Justice Carr (pictured) said political beliefs of protesters were not relevant when it came to determining whether or not criminal damage was justified

She said protesters could not say they honestly believed a property owner would consent to criminal damage if they were fully aware of its ‘circumstances’ (File Photo)

They also attached copies of letters proclaiming a climate emergency and accusing the organisations involved of ‘culpable inaction’.

The cost of the repairs totalled around £16,500.

‘C’ was also part of a group which targeted the headquarters of the Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green Party, around a month later.

The damage caused in this incident totalled around £20,000.

They were acquitted after a jury accepted their defence of lawful excuse.

The case was subsequently referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney General to clarify two points of law.

The Criminal Damage Act defines lawful excuse as the belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented to it if they had been fully aware of the circumstances.

The provision has seen limited previous use but has become increasingly relied upon in the context of climate change protests.

Just Stop Oil protester Eddie Whittingham jumping on the table at the World Snooker Championship in April last year (File Photo)

The decision comes after an eco-protester – who cannot be named for legal reasons, but referred to as ‘C’- was acquitted following a crown court trial where she was accused of damaging several offices (File Photo)

Central to the judges’ decision was what constituted the circumstances of the damage.

The judges ruled the ‘time, place and extent’ of the damage were relevant, given they were exercising their right to protest.

But the political beliefs harboured by the protesters would be considered ‘too remote’ to be relied on in a defence.

Lady Chief Justice Carr said in summary: ‘The circumstances would not include the political or philosophical beliefs of the person causing the damage.

‘They would not include the reasoning or wider motivation of the defendant. Those matters are too remote from the damage.

‘Evidence from the defendant about the facts of or effects of climate change would be inadmissible.’

The court’s decision does not affect C’s acquittal.

It declined to rule on whether the trial judge in C’s case should not have allowed the jury to consider whether to acquit her based on the lawful excuse defence.

They warned that judges must exercise ‘considerable caution’ to remove a defence from a defendant ‘particularly where the defence goes to the defendant’s state of mind’.

Read more