Climate protesters lose legal battle over right to cause damage

The Telegraph UK ^ | March 18, 2024 | By Charles Hymas

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Eco-activists’ claims that they have a right to cause damage as part of their protests have been rejected by Court of Appeal judges.

Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, asked the Court to rule on whether eco-protesters could 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 a protester from a climate action group known as Burning Pink who threw paint at the offices of Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Friends of the Earth, plus the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties, causing damage that cost more than £36,000 to repair.

The protester was cleared after claiming that she honestly believed that the owners of the damaged property would have consented to it if they had known more about the impact of climate change.

However, on Monday, three Court of Appeal judges ruled that protesters cannot use such a defence, as political beliefs were “too remote” to be classed as a “lawful excuse” if “they had known of the…damage and its circumstances”.

[gibsonguy]

Eco-activists - No Eco-terrorists is the proper term.

[No name given]

I’m all for good stewardship of God’s Creation, but these spoiled brats need to be punished severely for their misdeeds.

[Bullish]

They should have the crap knocked out of them every time they try this.

[jimtorr]

Note the very narrow ruling, that surely apply only to this case: ......political beliefs were “too remote” to be classed as a “lawful excuse” if “they had known of the…damage and its circumstances”.

This leaves open the dubious concept that violence and property damage are a valid, legal means of protest.

[antidemoncrat]

Hey, when those morons try to destroy a work of art then glue their hands to the floor or the art work, the police should just grab their hands and yank them free.

[Salman]