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.
Former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis met Sunday for the first time…
Jeep and trailer completely submerged Incident occurred in K'gari (Fraser Island)By Steve Williams for WhatsNew2Day…
Mike Conley punched Finch after evading a challenge and veering toward the bench.Minnesota's HC was…
By Freddy Pawle for WhatsNew2Day Australia Published: 00:22EDT, April 29, 2024 | Updated: 00:22EDT, April…
The devastated parents of a teenager accused of terrorism after allegedly stabbing a bishop claim…
Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi is a "hypocrite" who is "only against certain forms of racism",…