Over the past year, many climate protesters on trial for criminal damage have used the “consent” defense, arguing that if the owner had known more about the climate emergency, they would have agreed with the actions of the activists.
On Monday, in a case brought by Attorney General Victoria Prentis, the appeals court ruled that such a defense could not be used in future cases.
Sue Carr, the chief justice of England and Wales, told the court that motivations, beliefs and political or philosophical opinions were too “removed from the damage”.
Sandra Lavillethe environment correspondent of the Guardian, tells Michel Safi why the appeal court’s decision will make it harder for climate protesters to explain their actions in court, and explains how this government intervention is the latest in a series of attempts to suppress direct action.
Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Support the goalkeeper
The Guardian is editorially independent. And we want to keep our journalism open and accessible to everyone. But we increasingly need our readers to finance our work.
Support the goalkeeper
