A British jury cleared a half-dozen Greenpeace activists of charges they caused £35,000 of damage to a coal-fired power plant on the grounds that such actions were justified to help prevent the threat posed by climate change. Among those who testified on behalf of the activist was NASA scientist James Hansen. The Independent reports on the verdict:
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire. . . .
Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove. . . .
During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa . . . called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.
Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause. . . .
During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully, owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2 emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a "proportionate response" to the increasing environmental threat.
This was not the first time a British jury bought a "lawful excuse" defense by Greenpeace activists. In 1999 a jury acquitted activists who sabotaged a field of GM crops.
And since no automobile is carbon-neutral (yet), I think the next step should be to destroy all sorts of vehicles. Starting with those belonging to certain jurors.
And Greenpeace activists. I'm sure they will loudly praise the commitment to environmentalism that such action evinces.
There's an excellent article about Hansen's active support of eco-vandalism here.
I do have lots of problems with Hansen's involvment with such a case. Too bad the prosecutor didn't really go after his qualifications as an expert, maybe we could get some of the data he's been withholding.
Gah. This is like calling Carl Sagan, in his day, "the world's leading astronomer." In other words, this is the only person in the field of study whose name is known to the author of the piece.
However, most versions of criminal necessity defense require that defendant has a reasonable belief (even if mistaken) that his acts will prevent the evil. I'm not sure how these protesters explained to a judge or jury the belief that painting somebody's name on a smokestack would prevent any global warming, or greenhouse gas emissions or whatever.
Over the years I've seen a couple of crim cases locally where necessity was raised. One, which was thrown out at the threshold hearing, was raised by a group of abortion protesters who invaded and trashed a clinic, or otherwise did some unlawful acts in their protest. As I recall, part of the court's reasoning was that any person whom the unlawful acts prevented from obtaining an abortion at that clinic would simply get an abortion elsewhere. So in effect the unlawful acts did not prevent the harm that defendants claimed it did, and could not reasonably be expected to do so.
This is not jury nullification. This, insofar as it resembles the necessity defense, is a defense provided by law in which defendant must plead and prove certain facts.
Jury nullification is bringing a verdict despite the facts.
Let's say that they have to reimburse the 35,000 lbs. I kindof like that plan. Efficient advertizing.
That makes pretty much everything a target, with the courts as arbiters of what is and is not acceptable, rather than leaving it in the political realm to set law.
Union wages.
For example, I might take a bucket from the hardware store in order in order to fill it with water to put out a fire that threatened other properties. Were I charged with theft, it seems to me that the doctrine of necessity would apply, even though the spreading of the fire is not a criminal act.
Actually, let me suggest a much simpler next step: the electricity to the homes of each juror (and each of the defendants) should immediately be cut off. Too large a carbon footprint, and all that.
If "lawful excuse" is really applicable to this conduct under UK law, then methinks the law's an ass...
Criminal necessity defense varies among states, and does not exist federally and in some states. My "reasonable belief" reference was only to the defense I'm familiar with.
This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or under his control so to destroy or damage property.
(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—
(a)
if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b)
if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.
(5) This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.
I could, as mentioned above, destroy the power drop to the home of the meathead jurors in order to punish them. But my defense was that I honestly thought I was doing a good thing to prevent their carbon footprint from destroying the world.
Seems I could do pretty much anything I wanted to those morons. Until I got a reasonable jury. Which, come to think about it, would probably acquit me and buy me lunch.
If we are to believe otherwise, we must also believe that the supply of energy could be substantially reduced by this action, which causes its own set of problems, and its own set of readily foreseeable harms (which could reasonably be punished by criminal action).
From what they say there, our judicial system is quite different and seems to provide far more protections than the British system does.
It seems that nullification is a matter of course there.
What if plugging the outflow caused an unexpected explosion in the plant that killed several workers?
His actions are identical to those of overt supporters of "animal rights" violence against laboratories.
Mr. Hansen has well and truly jumped the shark in terms of his credibility. But it would be nice if the victim sued him in federal court here for the damages it suffered. Here's the liability (not jurisdiction) precedent:
Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983):
Yup, because his testimony in this case greatly increases the probability that he will violently hijack a plane . . .
And now to knock down both straw men in that statement. For starters, terrorists aren't limited to the trigger men alone; those who lead/organize groups, lend material support, or incite/encourage an attack are just culpable as the actual attacker.
Second, terrorists aren't limited to the plane-hijacking variety. Take, for instance, those who targeted animal researchers with firebombs.
The global arming meme is entrenched in the UK government. I wonder if the prosecution wasn't warned off by their peers.
Hey! I have the fondest memories of the PBS series "Cosmos," starring Carl Sagan and co-starring the Universe.
Furthermore, if you want to compare graffiti-tagging a building with firebombing someone's house, go right ahead. Also not even remotely comparable.
...then move to Colorado and set up a secret society.... ;)
Well, yes, but it is not actually necessary.
Public Defender:
Then the jury was composed of a bunch of asses. The power company will just pass the costs on to the consumers.
But the victim can sue Hansen in tort in U.S. District Court even if the British prosecutor does not appeal.
In any event, Hansen's action merits his designation as a terrorist supporter with all the lovely Transportation Security Agency consequences of that.
Sorry: They have just gone back to the seventh century. The UK has just approved Sharia courts for civil matters, including marriage problems.
(Although it would have a sort of historic precedent for Britons. Its colonial governments left sharia courts in place even while imposing English-style courts for matters not concerning personal status. For example, in Egypt.)
This was a "jury nullification" case pure and simple. That's a price worth paying for the benefit of having juries.
The use of Sharia Courts for dispute resolution is pursuant to our Arbitration Act 1979 - is voluntary and mirrors exactly the provisions under which the Jewish community may choose to have disputes resolved by a Rabbinical Court. No decree of either system can be enforced if contrary to public policy.
It does not 'mirror exactly' the Beth Din courts, since -- as far as I know -- the Beth Din courts do not include unequal provisions for the sexes.
Given Britain's public policy, as I understand it, about discrimination, it is hard to see how any sharia court decision could not be contrary to public policy.
It might be an accommodation/appeasement of Islamic sentiments, a hangover from the Raj, but it is hard to square with my understanding of the English constitution.