A visually impaired Paralympian has denied causing a public nuisance by climbing on top of a British Airways plane at London City Airport.
James Brown, 55, of Magdalen Road, Exeter, is alleged to have climbed on the aircraft on Thursday, 10th October 2019 as part of environmental campaign group Extinction Rebellion's takeover of the airport.
Gold medal winning cyclist Brown, who has previously been banned for doping, live-streamed the incident on Facebook.
"Okay, here I am, top of a fucking aeroplane at City Airport... I managed to get on the roof," he said.
"Oh man I'm shaking... This is all about the climate and ecological crisis. We're protesting at Government inaction on climate and ecological breakdown. They declare a climate emergency and do nothing about it."
Brown appeared before District Judge John Zani at Westminster Magistrates' Court earlier today.
He was bailed to appear at Southwark Crown Court on 8th November 2019. The Judge imposed a condition prohibiting Brown from being within one mile of any airport in England or Wales.
Fellow Extinction Rebellion protesters packed the public gallery and pavement outside the court.
Causing a public nuisance is a common law offence. It is defined in Archbold as thus: "A person is guilty of a public nuisance (also known as common nuisance), who (a) does an act not warranted by law, or (b) omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects."
There is no requirement of intention or recklessness. A person is guilty of causing a public nuisance if they knew, or ought to have known, that their actions or omissions would result in a nuisance being caused.
Causing a public nuisance is an either way offence. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 6 months' custody; in the absence of legislation to the contrary, the maximum (theoretical) penalty on conviction on indictment is an unlimited period in custody.
Given the overwhelming weight of evidence against Brown, it is difficult to fathom his logic in denying the charge. Perhaps the intention is generate further publicity, snarl up the courts and cause further unnecessary expense and inconvenience to the taxpaying public?
No comments:
Post a Comment