Justifying criminal damage in the name of protest: Nicholas Dobson looks at an Extinction Rebellion spraypaint rebellion and the ‘lawful excuse’ defence
- In s 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (lawful excuse), ‘circumstances’ must relate to the destruction of, or damage to, the property and ‘do not include the political or philosophical beliefs of the person causing the damage’.
- A judge may withdraw a defence from a jury if no reasonable jury properly directed could reach a particular conclusion.
Despite the Criminal Damage Act 1971, protest by property damage has become popular among activists. So, when is criminal damage not criminal at all? Answer: if a lawful excuse can be established. For, by s 1(1) of the 1971 Act (destroying or damaging property): ‘A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence’ (emphasis added).
What is ‘without lawful excuse’?
The meaning of ‘without lawful excuse’ is amplified
