Incredible! And I understand the precedent now...
Six Greenpeace protesters have just been acquitted on charges of criminal damage. They climbed the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant. A defence to criminal damage in this country is lawful excuse. To whit, the crime is:
Criminal Damage Act 1971
s.1
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
...
s.5 - "Without lawful excuse"
(1) This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above (...)
(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse-
(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b) if he destroyed or damaged (...) the property in question (...) in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed-
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.
...
In other words, it's a defence to criminal damage to have a lawful excuse, and a lawful excuse includes the honest (not necessarily reasonable) belief that you are destroying or damaging property in order to prevent the destruction or damage of other property.
This was the defence the Greenpeacers ran. They put some heavy guns on the witness stand. And the jury went for it.
I am not hopeful that it will survive appeal. But until that appeal comes, what an amazing precedent this is for direct action by environmental campaigners!
Criminal Damage Act 1971
s.1
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
...
s.5 - "Without lawful excuse"
(1) This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above (...)
(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse-
(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b) if he destroyed or damaged (...) the property in question (...) in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed-
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.
...
In other words, it's a defence to criminal damage to have a lawful excuse, and a lawful excuse includes the honest (not necessarily reasonable) belief that you are destroying or damaging property in order to prevent the destruction or damage of other property.
This was the defence the Greenpeacers ran. They put some heavy guns on the witness stand. And the jury went for it.
I am not hopeful that it will survive appeal. But until that appeal comes, what an amazing precedent this is for direct action by environmental campaigners!