Greenpeace and criminal damage case verdict poll

[Paranoid]

I have a deal of contempt for Greenpeace as in my opinion they are extremists, and resort to publicty stunts instead of pursuing discussion with the government. I expect people would take them somewhat more seriously if they didn't do things like this.

I also realise i accidently clicked Yes on the vote... could one of the mods change that if possible?

[dave48]

I don't like the idea of a 'legal excuse' myself. It simply just opens the doors to the more 'elite' sections of society being able to argue their way out of criminal acitivites. Who is to decide what is a legimate political excuse?

Quite frankly I can't see how they're actions were legitimate at all, there was no need to do it, as has been mentioned a banner or other method could have been used.

Infact I can see some negative consequences for the environment, direct action and other such actions will isolate Greenpeace as a pressure group from decision makers and weaken their influence. 'Outsider' pressure groups are much weaker than 'insider' groups. Consequently they will not be able to campaign succesfully for what are certainly very important issues.

Edited September 12, 2008 by dave48

[Devonian]

I have a deal of contempt for Greenpeace as in my opinion they are extremists, and resort to publicty stunts instead of pursuing discussion with the government. I expect people would take them somewhat more seriously if they didn't do things like this.

I also realise i accidently clicked Yes on the vote... could one of the mods change that if possible?

Actually I clicked No by mistake, can I vote again

I'm not sure words like extremist help - there are people who post here who might well be members of Greenpeace, and like those Greenpeace protesters have never hurt a soul, for them it's would be a misleading use of words. There is no comparison between Greenpeace protesters and people who kill others for a cause - those killers are the extremists.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Simple question. If you or I did that and we didn't have fancy pants scientists speaking up for us would we get away with it? I doubt it very much. As they often say, one rule for some.....

Indeed Bob.

Roo just because someone is acquitted in court it DOES NOT mean they are innocent. The Law is an ASS without a doubt. This case was not decided on LAW but utterly on 12 men and women's self beliefs/sentiments. Criminal Damage was undoubtedly caused, lawful excuse? Closing one chimney for a short period of time will not/has not changed the Inuits position....so no lawful excuse. Letter of the law they are guilty, however, under the term 'reasonable excuse' not 'lawful excuse' there is a case....and they won that case because of 12 ordinary men and women because reasonable excuse doesn't come into the crim dam act 1971. That ladies and gents is where the LAW BECOMES AN ASS because most folk go on personal feelings towards a defendant or the political situation and by god have some scum bags been acquitted because of that and some innocent people been put away because of that.

I say shut down ALL our power stations, destroy all intensive farming projects, stop oil use right now, stop use of gas and lets see how well these extremists believe in that kind of living

Someone mentioned about some activists turning up with all sorts of tools.....that is right some/indeed a lot are hell bent on causing mayhem AND INTENT on causing personal serious injury to others. Nice genuine people wanting a good world for all....who ARE YOU KIDDING.

Village, re the 'damage' situation if something is rendered useless or partially useless even temporarily it is criminal damage ie to intentionally let a car tyre down to stop one driving it is criminal damage. Also graffitti....although it washes off it is criminal damage.

Here is the part of the law which i can see why the defendants were acquitted

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

if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, 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.

It is part b i and ii and 3

They sought to protect property belonging, right or interest to another [inuits] and due to the house collapsing under melting glaciers were in immediate need of protection and what they did was reasonable in the grand scheme of things as they held an honest belief.

Where they are guilty and where the jury were mistaken is that they ARE NOT IN NEED OF IMMEDIATE PROTECTION. Immediate means exactly that.....so the verdict should have been....guilty.

BFTP

Edited September 13, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[VillagePlank]

Village, re the 'damage' situation if something is rendered useless or partially useless even temporarily it is criminal damage ie to intentionally let a car tyre down to stop one driving it is criminal damage. Also graffitti....although it washes off it is criminal damage.

I agree, but the law doesn't.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 does not define what 'damage' is; it is left to court to decide what constitutes damage on a case-by-case basis. More, here

Edited September 13, 2008 by VillagePlank

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I agree, but the law doesn't.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 does not define what 'damage' is; it is left to court to decide what constitutes damage on a case-by-case basis. More, here

Yes true but it is angled moreso to the fact that temporary 'damage' can be construed as damage. Basically it widens the base.

BFTP

[laserguy]

I say shut down ALL our power stations, destroy all intensive farming projects, stop oil use right now, stop use of gas and lets see how well these extremists believe in that kind of living :lol:

Boy do I agree with that ! Put a stop to all this AGW handwringing nonsense once and for all. And climate would still follow the path it's already on,whatever that may be.

[acbrixton]

A few thoughts:

1. As pointed out earlier the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (section 5 (2)) does indeed provide a defence to a charge of causing damage if this was done to protect other property provided that that property (1) "was in immediate need of protection", and (2) "the means of protection adopted...were...reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."

Section 5 (3) makes it clear that "it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.; i.e. an entirely subjective test.

2. As a decision, as yet unappealed, of the Crown Court the case cannot set a binding legal precedent. However it may influence jurors/magistrates who hear similar cases.

3. One of the arguments in favour of the jury system is that it acts as a check against 'unjust' laws; if jurors believe that a 'legally correct' verdict is unconscionable they may, and do, reach 'perverse' verdicts. The repressive breadth of the repealed Official Secrets Act 1911 is an example of a law that juries were prepared to 'ignore' by acquittals.

4. There is no right in law to demonstrate on private land. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides only a qualified right to protest on public land. Before the HRA came into force there was no legal right to demonstrate whatsoever: the public's right to use the public highways was restricted to a right to "pass and re-pass" only; the traditional approach to individual rights in the UK before the HRA was 'negative', i.e. one was permitted to do that which was not otherwise prohibited, there were few 'positive' rights.

5. The expert testimony of Prof. Hansen doubtless had the desired effect upon the jurors. I have not read the transcript of his evidence however he is reported as stating that the daily CO2 emmissions of Kingsnorth (some 20,000 tonnes) could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. If the reports are accurate this strikes me as a rather crude and over simplified view of causation and possibly takes him out of his area as a climatologist.

6. Doubtless GP will seek to use the same argument in future cases. How will the Crown Prosecution Service react in future cases where this defence is used? Politically it is difficult to see the CPS advancing the argument that AGW is a weak/unproven hypothesis or that CO2 emmissions are unlikely to be a major cause of global warming/climate change. The CPS might argue against the crudeness of Prof. Hansen's reported views on causation?

7. It is, I suppose, always open to Parliament to repeal s. 5 (3) of the CDA so as to replace the subjective test with an objective test, i.e. the belief must be reasonably as well as honestly held.

8. In reality the damage caused (painting 'Gordon' on a chimney) cannot logically be said to have protected the environment as the emmissions from Kingsnorth were uninterrupted. The damage caused was no more than a way of getting free publicity for GP's agenda. If GP had, as intended, damaged Kingsnorth so as to shut it down temporarily then logically one might argue that the defence of protecting the environment applied.

9. It is difficult to see how it can be argued that the environment was in "immediate need of protection" as required under s. 5(2) of the CDA. However as the law currently stands so long as a protestor honestly believes that the environment requires immediate protection that is sufficient.

10. I hope (but do not anticipate) that this case will be appealed so that the issues of causation and immediate protection are clarified requiring rather more intellectual rigour in the defences used by environmental protestors.

11. At least no-one can argue that my criticism of this case flow from an unreasoned rejection of AGW science!

regards

ACB

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

ACB

Perfect!

BFTP

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, a good, well-balanced and reasoned post by ACB.

Point 8 in ACB's analysis is, in my view, the main problem with the verdict that was reached re. criminal damage.

[Mondy]

Gore urges civil disobedience

[laserguy]

Gore urges civil disobedience

The lengths this bloke will go to in order to keep the cash from his AGW scams rolling in. As it crumbles,he gets more deperate. Hasn't he made enough out of it already?

[Gray-Wolf]

Let it go L.G.!

Whether you are right or wrong in your stance/beliefs you are firmly on the 'side' that will prevail.

The great god 'Profit' will not halt in it's exploitations/pollution/ruination of the planet until the last dollar bill has been extracted and the last sop has bought the final 'good' that he really doesn't need.

The only 'market adjustments' that will induce the type of sweeping changes needed to drop emissions to levels currently demanded will occur when the square mile is 5m under the north sea.

Any protests/outbursts are merely to salve the consciences of those who cannot stand idly by whilst our great benefactor goes to hell in a handcart dragging upwards of 40% of current species with it.

Maybe you and your mind-kind could grab yourself a nice big drink of raw crude to celebrate eh?

[laserguy]

"Let it go L.G.!

The great god 'Profit' will not halt in it's exploitations/pollution/ruination of the planet until the last dollar bill has been extracted and the last sop has bought the final 'good' that he really doesn't need".

Al Gore is the God of profit - his own,funded by the fawning bunch of acolytes in his wake. Talk about the Pied Piper.I wonder how much him and his mate Hansen charge for the suckers to listen rapturously to their tales of death and destruction based upon the myth of AGW while happily seeking to destroy the livelihoods of millions?

"Maybe you and your mind-kind could grab yourself a nice big drink of raw crude to celebrate eh"?

I said very recently that I could not care less if a googolplex barrels of oil was found,or never another drop again. Me? I'm just a honest guy working hard to provide for the family and maintain our very small house. I don't know why you appear to have this mental picture of me as some sort of wealthy spendaholic who is addicted to all the trappings of the oil-age. I'm as poor as a church mouse (fact!) but have riches beyond money - health,family,good friends,inner peace etc (though I rage outwardly about AGW,wrongs of this world etc,I'm totally at ease with my own personal conclusions and morals). This'll surprise you - I'm as eagerly awaiting the collapse and demise of capitalism and rampant consumerism and greed as much as you appear to be. Human induced climate change? Not on the radar,not the tiniest blip. Why confuse the two? I don't think you'll be entirely happy until the entire population is out of work and living a Utopian pastoral existence with not a care in the world. Me too,tbh. Unfortunately,it wouldn't quite pan out like that,methinks.