Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

UK jury: Threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 10:08am

Missed this one. Independent:

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

Interesting.

Somehow, I don't think Roberts and Alito will look on a legal doctrine like that with great favor...

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by gob on

From William Penn's trial to this. An early blogger gives us his (unlikely to be her) take:

Magna Charta, is Magnaf----- with the Recorder of London ; and to demand right an affront to the court.
Will and Power are their great charter, but to call for England's, is a crime, incurring the penalty of their Bale-dock, and Nasty-hole, nay, the menace of a Gag, and Iron Shackles too.
The Jury, though proper judges of law and fact, they would have over-ruled in both, as if their Verdict signified no more, than to echo back the illegal Charge of the Bench ; and because their courage and honesty did more than bold pace with the threat and abuse of those, who sat as judges, after two days and two nights restraint for a verdict, in the end were fined and imprisoned, for giving it.
O ! what monstrous, and illegal proceedings are these ? Who reasonably can call his coat his own ? When property is made subservient to the will and interest of his judges ; or, who can truly esteem himself a free man ? When all pleas for liberty are esteemed sedition, and the laws, that give, and maintain them, so many insignificant pieces of formality.

The same blogger gives part of the court transcript:

Cla. How say you? Is William Penn Guilty, &c., or Not guilty?
Fore-man. Not guilty.
Cla. How say you? Is William Mead Guilty, &c., or Not guilty?
Fore-m. Not guilty.
Cla. Then hearken to your Verdict; you say that William Penn is Not Guilty
in Manner and Form as he stands indicted; you say that Williain Mead is Not guilty in Manner and Form as he stands indicted, and so you say all?
Jur. Yes, we do so.
Obser. The Bench being unsatisfied with the Verdict, commanded that every
Person should distinctly answer to their Names, and give in their Verdict, which
they unanimously did, in saying, Not Guilty, to the great Satisfaction of the Assembly.
Recorder. I am sorry, Gentlemen, you have followed your own Judgments and Opinions, rather than the good and wholsome Advice, which was given you; God keep my Life out of your Hands; but for this the Court Fines you forty Mark a Man; and Imprisonment till paid.

Go, juries.

Policy not party!

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I read about this previously, but I still don't know what to think. Why? What if it was applied to anti-abortion extremists? Would saving the life of a fetus be reason enough to break the law?

Maybe I just don't understand this fully enough to have a strong opinion. Though saving the environment is a good thing. I do have to say there are some animal rights and environmental terrorists out there that seek to do more than just damage property and what happens if they damage a person?

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

My impression is that this is an irresponsible verdict, and gives cover not just to Greenpeace, but the likes of ELF or any other group with malicious intent who hide behind the defense of 'good/noble intentions'. No, this is not great news, and not the right way to go about saving the environment.

Turlock