![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
julietThe 6 Greenpeace activists under trial for occupying Kingsnorth's smoke stack are cleared under a 'lawful excuse' defence.
This is *fantastic* - it means that the jury believe that the activists were acting legitimately to protect property, which is an excuse for criminal damage. (The classic example is that you have a lawful excuse to break your neighbour's door down if their house is on fire, in order to prevent further damage occurring.) It's worth noting that, as I understand it, this doesn't necessarily mean that the *jury* think that the action was necessary to protect property; the important legal point is that the defendants genuinely believed it to be the case[0].
Anyway: very, very good news for the no-new-Kingsnorth movement, & indeed for climate activism in general.
[0] There might be a "reasonable person" bit in there somewhere as well. IANAL etc etc.
This is *fantastic* - it means that the jury believe that the activists were acting legitimately to protect property, which is an excuse for criminal damage. (The classic example is that you have a lawful excuse to break your neighbour's door down if their house is on fire, in order to prevent further damage occurring.) It's worth noting that, as I understand it, this doesn't necessarily mean that the *jury* think that the action was necessary to protect property; the important legal point is that the defendants genuinely believed it to be the case[0].
Anyway: very, very good news for the no-new-Kingsnorth movement, & indeed for climate activism in general.
[0] There might be a "reasonable person" bit in there somewhere as well. IANAL etc etc.
