Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The trial, beginning on Monday, of five climate activists alleged to have vandalised JPMorgan’s London office could become a pivotal case for the use of law in England and Wales.
It is one of several criminal proceedings involving environmental protesters to be heard over the next fortnight, highlighting both the rise in climate-related courtroom battles and the UK government’s efforts to deter civil disobedience.
The trials come as lawyers and activists warned of both a legislative and a judicial clampdown against climate activism that will have far-reaching effects on civil liberties and the future of disruptive action.
“The government through legislation, and the courts through cases, are tightening their grip in such a way that in certain circumstances the role of the jury is being undermined,” said Michael Mansfield, a rights lawyer.
He said people with legitimate concerns about climate change felt the best way to “get their voices heard” was in the streets, and that jurors should be given the opportunity to hear their reasoning and make up their own mind.
On Monday, five women from the climate action group Extinction Rebellion will face charges at Inner London Crown Court of criminal damage. They were arrested after applying stickers at JPMorgan premises that read “in case of climate emergency, break glass” and going on to damage windows.
The women, aged between 29 and 67, plan to base their legal defence on contending that the property owner would have consented to the damage if only they truly understood the effects of climate change.
They may be the last to do so, however, after a string of acquittals of other protesters who had successfully used the defence prompted the UK government to apply to the courts for a review.
The Court of Appeal will on Wednesday hold a hearing on whether the defence may be used in climate protest cases.
With environmental protest rising in the UK, ministers have sought to crack down on public disruptions by introducing legislation to curtail such activities, notably, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023.
These changes, which strengthen police to restrict protests, to stop and search people “without suspicion”, as well as create new offences, have raised questions about civil liberties being encroached.
In January, Michel Forst, the UN’s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, criticised the UK’s “increasingly severe crackdowns” on protest. He noted “it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK”.
Barrister Michael Goold, who successfully used the “belief in consent” defence at the November trial of XR activists who sprayed fake blood on the Treasury, said the UK had become more “punitive for protesters”.
Some argue that action is needed in the face of protests that damage public property and block roads. Ministers have defended action taken to prevent “violent and dangerous” behaviour.
Alarm has risen among campaigners over the effects of climate change and ministers’ response to global warming. The government’s independent climate adviser has said the UK is making “worryingly slow” progress on cutting carbon emissions. Last year was the hottest on record globally.
A Home Office spokesperson said the “right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy but we must also protect the law-abiding majority’s right to go about their daily lives”.
Conservative MP and former Lord High Chancellor Robert Buckland spoke of “a very wide envelope on which people can legitimately and legally protest in the UK”.
He added there was a “balance to be struck . . . Freedom of speech is very, very important, but so are the rights and freedoms of other people whose lives are disrupted [by protests] in a way that is unacceptable.”
Within the legal profession some believe the reforms have harmed people’s confidence to take action. Barrister Adam Wagner said the legislative crackdown was “making it hard and frightening for ordinary members of the public to go out and protest”.
“Instead, you’ve got a more radical element. They are going to prison in quite large numbers now. They will carry on doing what they’re doing. They see themselves as martyrs,” he said.
Those found guilty were facing harsher sentences, Goold said. In some cases defendants have been banned from mentioning climate change in court as part of their evidence. Several who did have been jailed for contempt of court.
Despite the crackdown, however, juries have shown they are willing to acquit protesters. Of about 160 verdicts tracked by campaign group Plan B involving environmental protesters since 2019, three-quarters resulted in either not guilty verdicts or hung juries.
The cases included that of six XR activists who were found not guilty by jurors for criminal damage to Shell’s headquarters even after the judge ruled that five of them had no defence under the law.
Catherine Higham, policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the acquittals suggested the public understood that “the issues [relating to climate change] are so serious” — even if they “might not support the tactics” of protesters.
Climate Capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here.
Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Find out more about our science-based targets here
