Four Greenpeace protestors have been cleared of damaging the roof of former prime minister Rishi Sunak's North Yorkshire home.
The four, named below, were cleared of criminal damage following a two-day trial at York Magistrates' Court:
- Michael Grant, 64, of Rosewell, Midlothian;
- Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney, London;
- Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside;
- Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside.
Criminal damage is an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. An offence where the damage is valued at less than £5,000, as in this case, is tried summarily and has a maximum penalty of a fine at level 4 (£2,500) and/or 3 months' custody. I have previously written a guide to the offence of criminal damage.
The first day of the trial was Wednesday, 24th July 2024.
DJ Adrian Lower heard that the four climbed onto the roof of grade 2 listed Kirby Sigston Manor, near Northallerton, on Thursday, 3rd August 2023.
Once there they unfurled oil-black drapes across the frontage of the property and displayed a banner saying "no new oil".
In doing so they were accused of recklessly causing £3,000 worth of damage to fifteen roof tiles. The court also heard that the Sunaks had to pay £1,450 to tree surgeons booked for the day, who were unable to complete their work due to the protest.
The four denied criminal damage on the basis that any roof damage predated their actions on the day.
Victoria Ailes, prosecuting, told the court that a roof inspection was carried out two weeks after the protest.
Ms Ailes said: "The prosecution case is that the defendants were jointly responsible for the damage.
"It can be seen (from photographs and video) that the location of the damage corresponds to the locations where the defendants went."
Giving evidence Scott Hall, the Sunak family gardener, told the court that he confronted the protestors at around 8 am when he found them in the grounds of Kirby Sigston Manor.
He told them they were trespassing and asked them to leave, but they replied that "their cause was more important."
Mr Hall called the police, who eventually managed to remove the protestors from the graduated slate roof at around 1.15 pm.
The Sunak family were on holiday in California at the time.
In relation to the condition of the roof, Mr Hall said: "It is a well-maintained property and we would have been aware of any damage to the roof."
When shown photographs of the damage, Mr Hall confirmed that he was not aware of it prior to the protest date.
Owen Greenhall, defending, told the court that his clients denied causing any damage.
He qualified that with: "If there was any damage, it certainly wasn't done intentionally. These defendants were not aware of the risk of damage. They were taking care."
Mr Greenhill concluded the first day by making a submission that there was no case to answers - in other words a correctly directed tribunal of fact, taking the prosecution case at its highest, would be unable to convict the defendants on the basis of the prosecution's evidence.
DJ Lower set the second day of the trial for Friday, 20th September 2024.
By that time, having carefully considered the defence's half-time submission, DJ Lower had determined that there was no case to answer on the conclusion of the prosecution case.
The four defendants were duly cleared of the allegations.
Speaking after the case activist Alexandra Wilson said: "We're not surprised that the Crown Prosecution Service brought this case - we know our protest was controversial, particularly amongst politicians who have been doing their best to criminalise as much protest as possible. But we were very careful not to break anything, including the law, and we're happy our efforts were recognised.
"In our case, the court maintained Britain's proud tradition of tolerating dissent, but that tradition is under increasing threat, with peaceful protestors being treated like terrorists and given shockingly brutal sentences."
No comments:
Post a Comment