Eco-protesters can be blocked from talking about the effects of climate change when they are put on trial for criminal damage, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Attorney General Victoria Prentis asked judges to consider the law on criminal cases brought against protesters after a series of controversial acquittals by juries.
In a ruling which is a blow for environmental groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, senior judges concluded that protesters cannot claim at trial that they honestly believed a property owner would have consented to damage caused had they been fully aware of its “circumstances”, such as the impact of climate change.
“It is only the circumstances of the damage which are relevant”, said Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, delivering the ruling at the Royal Courts of Justice.
“The circumstances must relate to the destruction of, or damage to, the property. Thus, the relevant circumstances may include matters such as the time, place and the extent of the damage caused.”
“These factors would be linked to the damage and directly relevant to the owner’s hypothetical decision as to consent. They do not include the political or philosophical beliefs of the person causing the damage.”
The judges said that juries could be told if the damage caused by defendants happened during a protest against climate change.
But they said “further explanation” of the defendant’s views on climate change including the “extent” and “reasoning” lacked the “necessary proximity to the damage”.
A defendant’s views on “the facts of or effects of climate change could not amount to the circumstances of the damage”, said the judges. “Such evidence would be inadmissible.”
The Court of Appeal was also asked to rule on whether judges in criminal trials could properly withdraw from defendants entirely the possibility of a defence of “lawful excuse” for their actions.
The judges declined to answer the question, but said that the power remains that “a judge may withdraw an issue from the jury if no reasonable jury properly directed could reach a particular conclusion”.
“A judge must exercise considerable caution before taking that step, particularly where the defence goes to the defendant’s state of mind”, said the court.
At Southwark crown court last year, a group of activists were also acquitted of criminal damage after smashing the windows at HSBC’s headquarters, causing around £500,000 of damage.
