Incredible! And I understand the precedent now...

[bronnyelsp]

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:

Comments

enter the camel's nose?

[luckyoldsun]

Interesting precedent, although as you said it's the sort of things that dies an early death. I can imagine its use for more nefarious purposes

Re: enter the camel's nose?

[bronnyelsp]

I can imagine its use for more nefarious purposes.

What the defence? It's statutory, and in common use, in general. The reasoning behind it is that in many situations it has to be lawful to destroy or damage property in order to prevent further destruction or damage, eg when a fireman breaks down a door to get into a house and stop a fire. I expect there's something similar on the books in the States?

What's remarkable here is that the environmentalists claimed that they were damaging this smokestack in the interests of preventing further destruction to property through climate change. And given they only had to prove a "genuine," and not a "reasonable" belief that their actions really would prevent that damage, the defence certainly appears to be made out. I will be interested to see what higher courts do with it.

Re: enter the camel's nose?

[luckyoldsun]

well, exactly... if reasonableness isn't required, I could come up with all sorts of genuine beliefs that, perhaps, benefit myself or others when it's one property v. another, but are not necessarily environmental protection, for example.

Am I missing something regarding a legitimate public interest as a requirement of the statute? Anything regarding exhausting existing reasonable avenues of affecting a change before resorting to vigilanteism? (for a firefighter, shouting "open the door!" or making a determination that the door is locked without possibility of being opened conventionally... for an environmentalist seeking to shut down a point source of pollution, exhausting means such as civil suit and injunctive relief) Cute use of criminal law, although it's the sort of thing I see rectified by your legislature there post-haste. Then again, maybe this is the sort of thing folks go for over there.

Re: enter the camel's nose?

[bronnyelsp]

Well, it's lasted since 1971.

[sameen]

um..is that like a major issue in tort law?

[bronnyelsp]

No, it's criminal law. It was before a crown court.