A jury has cleared nine climate activists of causing £500,000 worth of criminal damage to HSBC’s London headquarters after they argued had a “lawful excuse” for the action. The Times has the story.
The women, all members of Extinction Rebellion (XR), sang as they shattered windows with hammers and chisels at about 7am on April 22nd 2021.
Jessica Agar, 23, Blyth Brentnall, 32, Valerie Brown, 71, Eleanor Bujak, 30, Clare Farrell, 40, Miriam Instone, 25, Tracey Mallaghan, 47, Susan Reid, 65, and Samantha Smithson, 41, all denied criminal damage.
Stella McCartney, the fashion designer, had lent them shirts, blazers and suits to wear during their trial at Southwark crown court, XR said. McCartney was contacted for comment.
The nine, two of whom represented themselves, were cleared by a jury after a three-week trial. The defendants said that they targeted HSBC because it was one of Europe’s largest investors in fossil fuels, thereby contributing to climate change.
During the attack they wore patches reading “Better broken windows than broken promises” and placed stickers on the windows, reading “£80bn into fossil fuels in the last five years”.
XR said that the jury made several requests during the trial, including for an explanation of the Paris climate agreement and information on what the government had done to address climate change.
None of the defendants denied their part in the action and their case was based on the defence of “lawful excuse”. The Criminal Damage Act allows such a defence if the defendant believed that they had the consent of others to damage the property in question.
This seems like a misapplication of the law. How can it be seriously entertained that they “believed” they had “consent” to cause HSBC’s HQ half a million pounds worth of criminal damage? It’s depressing that this acquittal came via a jury, an institution that is supposed to be a bulwark against elitist nonsense, not a promoter of it.
The Times reports that of the members of XR to have faced a jury trial, “29 have been cleared and 18 have been convicted”. Juries are clearly sympathetic to the climate alarmist cause, even letting off activists who admit criminal damage. As I say, depressing. It seems the law may need tightening.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So, anything goes? Let’s smash the place up! no crime, no punishment, spot on Britain!
I think you’ll especially be blown away by their hammering technique, Dings!
haha
No. If you’re a white working class man who decided he had a lawful excuse for destruction of private property they’d come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Anything goes only applies to lefties doing the Establishment’s dirty work.
Spot on!
Here is a clip of the deluded morons in action. I agree with some of the comments about their ‘skills’ at hammer usage;
https://twitter.com/ElanderNews/status/1725841428348010630
We know about the ‘two-tier policing’, but that evidently extends to the judicial system. Another example here. Are prisons still too ”overcrowded” to house rapists these days? Or is it a case of ‘priorities’, and who is seen as the greater danger to society??
”A British man who’s witnessing his homeland destroyed in front of his eyes gets 5 years for mean words whilst rapists aren’t even going to prison.
Speaking out against your replacement, in the eyes of the law, is worse than rape.
Rape destroys lives, mean words do nothing other than upset somebody.”
https://twitter.com/Steve_Laws_/status/1725580605906145545
Did the court establish that HSBC gave consent for the damage? I doubt the law intends that consent can be given by any third party, or any gangster could simply plead that the boos gave them permission to torch your shop.
The jury decided, but the judge directed them. What trust can we have in English Law if it so blatantly contravenes natural justice?
Is that not proof of Common Law in action? A jury by your peers. Unfortunately most of the peers today are brainwashed by the climate hoax. How about we get consent to smash their face in!
An utterly obscene verdict. Talk about the madness of crowds.
Or the corrupt woke incompetence of a non-existing legal system
But you see when you think the end of the world is coming your brain acts in mysterious ways.
The picture really does shown an inadequate bunch of misguided ppl. Perhaps the jury needs to have their windows and doors smashed in, they then might reach a more sane verdict. Can we all go and smash in Stella or Paul McCartney’s windows now as she’s given them her blessing?
Whoever their barrister was will be quids in!
The “Thud!” of another brand – Ms McCartney’s – hitting the Boycott list.
Where did they find the clowns on the jury? Islington and Shoreditch?
If these people pulled this stunt outside of London they would be behind bars.
Our legal system is broken.
All over the world – America, Israel, the EU – unelected activist judges criminalise good people and exonerate criminals.
It suits the political establishment. Here for example, most politicians buy into the carbon scam, just as they were happy to use covid as cover for seizing powers, removing freedoms.
The legal back stop is of course the ECHR.
Who we vote for is irrelevant as long as these judges remain.
This is bad news for those of us who think there is a real climate problem. It is only going to increase divisiveness and resistance to practical measures.
Can you describe the climate problem?
Yes I’d be interested to know as well.
At least you seem to agree that no matter how much you feel about an issue you should not go around smashing up property, climbing on bridges or I hope you also disapprove of blocking streets and destroying works of art. ———-But ofcourse those of us who think there is NOT so much of a climate problem will find your “practical measures” nothing of the sort, and infact a hugely expensive folly. I feel strongly that it is folly, but I don’t smash up windows and doors and expect people to pay attention to me. Only the seriously misinformed and brainwashed seem to do things like that.
HBCS, like the other banks and politicians, are up to their necks in this deception. Activist, corporate and political pressure form a pincer movement on the public; the idea being to create the impression of an unstoppable movement, then ‘nudge’ the public into compliance with it. What is good for one of this triad is good for the rest, and they are all being driven behind the scenes by the same people.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the banks are aware and supportive of planned damage to their property. The costs are beyond trivial compared to what they stand to gain as intermediaries in a privatised energy taxation system.
Yes good point but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ——-Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the eco socialist scam but I have no evidence banks are involved in damage to their own property
The only people who could reasonably be involved would be window manufacturers and fitters.
I am not surprised anymore about this or other m*r*nic juries and judges, ever since I have had discussions with about 20 neighbours about solar panel installation on our roofs.
Despite living on an architecturally very special estate in a national park in deep blue territory, they have practically all fallen for the con.
Without knowing any of the basic facts, like the 0.04% or the panels becoming toxic waste, let alone being willing to research or discuss them or any sceptical articles, of course- very much the same behaviour and attitude as with the gene therapies.
As I said before, this (as well as Truss’ ouster, which they all feted at the time) also means that the desire and support for truly conservative policies by Tories, let alone a U turn on Net Zero legislation, is in reality just wishful thinking of and within our echo chamber.
In short: We’re f*cked.
And/as this can and will only change the same way as in Argentina, namely in and after a much larger catastrophe and national bankruptcy.
That reminds my of a Tweet by Tobias Ellwood just after the ousting of Truss….”We are no longer a low tax, high growth economy”….He later deleted that Tweet. Whatever did he mean I wonder!
Near where I live is the first hydrogen project in the world in Buckhaven Fife. Many residents are taking up the offer of a free boiler etc and some cash, if they allow hydrogen heating to their property to replace gas central heating. One person I know who took the time to investigate this for himself rather than blindly accept the hydrogen decided that despite all the free stuff, that the operating costs of hydrogen in the long run would be very much more expensive and he refused to accept it. ———-It is a pity more people don’t do the same on everything connected to energy and climate, where they will find that the climate crisis is mostly a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for political purposes and the solutions to it, like renewables, are unreliable and expensive niche technologies that will be of little benefit to them and very expensive and in the end, doing nothing much for the planet when all is considered rather than just the very uncertain claims about CO2.
We have a DS member who believes we have a “climate problem.”
I’m blowed if I know what that means. Climate just is.
I agree. There is no climate problem. At the very least nothing that humans have done and nothing that humans can control, and nothing that will bring about cataclysmic change. However, within the climate debate, there are arguments that get kind of woven in about pollution and environment and how to make sure that we are using the earth resources with some sensitivity, which I understand and support. I think we should try to leave the world a better place for the kids.
Unfortunately these conversations are normally with hysterical people who see humanity only as agents of destruction, whereas humans are really rather good at mobilising to do good things to share our world with the creatures and do things for the best. Typically the best way of doing this is economic development of poor countries rather than trying to impose top-down ideological solutions to problems that don’t exist. This is the very thing that the hysterics want to try and stop, in their quest to preserve the Earth in Aspic.
Rather a lot of good arable land round me has succumbed to the proliferation of huge solar panels, which I would argue doesn’t do much for ‘rewilding’. It would have been much better used growing beef herds, but then ‘METHANE..!!’. Yes, of course. Methane…
I just think they’re a bunch of closet Communists!
Agreed.
Re-wilding actually means to all intents and purposes, leaving the land to rot. I worked on some such land last year. It is nothing but weeds and completely useless. The surrounding farmland supports healthy herds of sheep. Very sad.
Re-wilding is nonsense spoken by nonsensical people.
I got shown a field by a farmer given up to rewilding, he said the same.
I think you are all referring to the pristine utopia that supposedly existed before the evil environmental sinners came along (humans)and polutted the whole planet. ———-I think they forget that before we spoiled their supposed paradise which is actually a very dangerous and cruel place that average life expectancy was about 25, people were dying of preventable diseases after a short life of back breaking labour, whereas we now have cures for many diseases, and we live into our 80’s. ——All because of —————–FOSSIL FUELS.
The only climate problem is that nature doesn’t give two hoots who or what happens to be living on this planet at any particular time! It’ll do what it bloodywell wants and it’s up to its occupants to move around or adapt or both!
There are three lawful excuses for criminal damage:
1) The person believed that they had the consent of the other to damage the property in question
2) The defendant caused the damage or destruction in self-defence and with reasonable force
3) If the damage was caused while protecting the property in question, the means taken to protect that property were not unreasonable, and the person honestly believed it needed protecting.
As 1) and 3) obviously don’t apply, 2) must have been used here. That’s still mind-boggling, as its directly supportive of eco-terrorism: People who invest in fossil fuels must accept that whatever belongs to them may be legally destroyed by people ‘self-defending’ against climate change.
Hopefully, if necessary, number 2 could be used as a defence by those accused of causing damage to ULEZ cameras.
I suggest trying 3). These cameras are expensive and they ought to be protected from climate hazards, especially considering rampant climate change. Hence, it’s better to store them safely indoors than have them mounted on public posts.
My next door neighbours BMW contributes to climate change (allegedly). I am waiting for him to wake up this morning so I can politely explain to him why I trashed it in his drive last night. After all, don’t we all have a duty to protect our “children and grandchildren” from this manufactured climate crisis?
I think the juror’s backgrounds should be checked to see if they had common cause with the accused in this trial.
Or a common ‘wealthy friend’ perhaps.
I would be interested to find out more about the jury selection process in this case.
HSBC should take them to the Civil Court for the cost of the damage.
And if they’d smashed up Downing Street?
I didn’t think the world could get any madder just goes to show how wrong you can be.
As Will says depressing though I’m not sure that even touches the sides.
Amazing what a little Adobe Photoshop can do for diversity. Inserted figures must be in proportion though. The lady of color on the right here is twice the size of the others.
Ar yes! The The white haired lady on the left seems to have been supersized aswell!
Looks like they were poorly pencilled in afterwards.
We’re the listening bank. We love to hear our windows being smashed. Not a ER fan but please go for Parliament or the law courts next.
This nonsense has been going on for quitr long enough.
In the sphere of “Climare”, I think the case of the “Kingsnorth Six” was the first, where Jim Hansen (NASA-GISS) and some nondescript North American Indigenous person were allowed to give irrelevant and erroneous “evidence”, unchallenged, to a carefully picked judge and jury and a prosecution team who made no attempt to properly prosecute or to challenge nonsense.
Many other cases and the snowball of failed cases still grows.
I believe it is vital that even loonies, even malicious and lying loonies must have rights to protest, but if they commit a blatant crime, they must do the time.
As well as naming the defendants, it would be good if this report named the prosecutor, the judge and those who ensured that the jury didn’t have even one member who realised the absolute scam being, yet again, excused.
I sincerely hope that they, and the jurors, all find themselves in an ambulance delayed by these malevolent nutters.
‘I sincerely hope that they, and the jurors, all find themselves in an ambulance delayed by these malevolent nutters.’
Superb!
The hypocrisy of Stella McCartney is breathtaking.
I am (happily) not a lawyer but I used to sit as a magistrate and therefore was a “judge” in the application of English law. I struggle to believe the truth of the statement, explaining the verdict, saying that the “consent of others” is a lawful excuse.
Surely, and please in the name of sanity let this be true, the consent has to come from the victim of the damage?
But then again… didn’t we get a similar verdict that was allowed to stand in the Bristol statue-toppling case?
Prosecution today depends on who you are and what you are protesting about. ——These people clearly took the law into their own hands but we can see that officialdom are reluctant to punish their own useful idiots that do all their dirty work for them. I know for a fact that if I hammered a banks windows without a climate T shirt on I would be acquitted of NOTHING.———Social Justice is a really nasty business.
You sometimes wish that karma would be the judge, let’s say, one time, the glass falls out in two large peices and cuts them in half! Only saying like!
Time to realise that the judiciary is gone, and no longer represents we, the people.
Beyond f***ed
If we keep pandering to these brainwashed dreamers, our cars will be trashed before our eyes, and our shopping trollies emptied out into the street because we have a bit of steak in there. Our main streets will be continually blocked by the super glue nut jobs and airports barricaded so we miss our flights. ——-These squirming eco fundamentalists will just get more and more emboldened and filled with self righteousness. Has someone got to die before our judiciary wakes up to the threat of eco terrorism?
That’s a REWARD. They have now been given a license to do it again. Wish isn’t it. & what does that tell us about our “;legal”system?
It shows that the constant media/political climate change hysteria indoctrination works.
Tell someone something constantly and repeatedly and most people will believe it, whether it’s true or not.
What if they smashed up the windows and homes of the jury members, would they still say it’s ok?