The Guardian has reported this morning that:
An environmental activist has been jailed for eight weeks after disobeying a judge's instruction not to mention the climate crisis as his motivation during his trial for taking part in a road-blocking protest.
David Nixon, 36, a care worker from Barnsley, was sentenced at Inner London crown court on Tuesday after admitting contempt of court the day before by using his closing address to begin telling a jury about his reasons for protesting.
This is staggering, to put it mildly.
As I understand it, and I have studied some law, if a person is to be found guilty of a crime in the UK it has to be proven that they have what is called the mens rea to commit that crime. The concept is complex, but boils down to intention.
What the concept of mens rea embraces is the idea that the intent for an action that a person actually undertakes is vital to understanding whether it is criminal or not, and whether it was deliberate or not, all of which have significant impact on whether the charge brought is appropriate or not.
To provide an obvious example, murder requires that one person deliberately seek to kill another person. On the other hand, if they did not have that intention but were merely reckless as to the consequences of their actions they might still have killed another person but might be guilty of manslaughter, which is a different offence with different penalties. And if they acted in self defence but killed someone they might not be guilty of any crime at all. Intention very clearly matters.
The defendant who has now been imprisoned in this case was accused of blocking a road. He sat, with others, in the middle of that road, as I understand it.
The judge ruled in court that none of the defendants were allowed to discuss in court the motivation for their protest. They were specifically not allowed to refer to the climate crisis or the cost of living crisis when offering explanation for their actions even though protest on these issues was their intention for blocking the road that they sat on.
Now a man is going to prison for explaining in front of a jury the reasons for his actions. In other words, he is being imprisoned because he provided vital legally relevant information to those tasked with determining whether he was guilty of the crime of which he was accused.
In my opinion this could only happen in a fascist state. It is an obvious suspension of the rule of law. Intent is now, apparently, to be inferred from actions. The right of an accused person to explain what they did is to be denied. A jury is to be deliberately denied information critical to their forming an opinion on this case. Only a fascist state could tolerate this.
Maybe that is where we are. If the judge in this case is allowed to continue to sit in that role we will know. But whether or not they are, this is deeply disturbing. The onward march of authoritarianism in this country continues.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks for raising this horrendous development Richard
How can we mobilise a serious pressure group to counter the continual erosion of our liberties?
Liberty and the archaic House of Lords are doing a job but is it enough?
I am not sure
Not my usual area
There are two approaches to this. One is exemplified by the Good Law Project, who take on relevant, high profile, and winnable cases and are well resourced to do so, with significant recent success. In so doing they make incremental, but solid progress, redefining the interpretation of specific articles of law in the light of current and evolving context, and leveraging the common law principle of precedent in order that it might be used by others.
The other is the approach of organisations such as Liberty or Amnesty, pressure groups who campaign on broader issues of justice, fairness, and liberties as pertaining to the practice of law.
To my mind, both are equally relevant and have to work together – but it would be ineffective to fudge the two. I am not an expert on mens rea – I studied Human Rights Law – but it sounds to me as if the current context of huge social change calls for clarification as to the timeline that bounds ‘intent’ – these people were clearly acting in the common long term interest – but the judge is seeking to limit the bounds of ‘intent’ to the more immediate or short term. I’m no expert – any lawyers out there… ?
This is both shocking and depressing. The concept of “British Justice” has been destroyed.
This is reductionism at its worst, a reduction of reasoning that could have horrendous consequences for human beings everywhere.
Is it just me or are we seeing the slippery slope that we witnessed in Nazi Germany?
It certainly resonates as such to me.
And our prisons are already full to bursting!
While I absolutely agree that this is an appalling position, I think there is a need to look at whether this is a temporary aberration by a single judge, or of this is ‘legal’.
A couple of years ago a group of defendants were acquitted by a jury, despite the very clear evidence that they had committed the offence, apparently because the jury agreed with their motivation. I think it may have been throwing a slaver’s statue into a river? The government tried to appeal the verdict, which is wholly unacceptable – a jury verdict is sacrosanct; they ended up going to court to get a view about whether this should have happened, even though the appeal court decision would have no effect on the not guilty verdicts. I think this is the result of that situation.
Not every crime requires mens rea. There are offences of strict liability where neither mens rea nor negligence are needed. One such offence, for example, is driving while over the alcohol limit. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to drive – you may have been so drunk that you were incapable of forming a valid intention – the offence is made out if you were over the limit and in charge of a motor vehicle.
The offence in this case was causing a public nuisance, which does require intent https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/section/78/enacted I cannot, quickly, find any suggestion, anywhere that limits the defendant’s right to talk about the justification for their intent.
Let’s hope this contempt decision is appealed as quickly as possible.
The vast majority of crimes do require mens rea
Thanks for that Cyndy.
Under section 78(3) : “It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act or omission mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.”
Whether or not there is an excuse, and whether that excuse is reasonable or not, sound like the sort of questions that should be left to the jury, so I am surprised at the judge’s direction not to mention climate change.
“During the trial I ruled you could not give evidence of your motivations for your actions, and could not refer, except in a very limited way, to climate change and the cost of living crisis.”
Seems Kafkaesque, really. How can you establish the defence without giving evidence of your motivations?
Agreed
Thanks Andrew. That is where I was trying to get to.
Proof of our authoritarian state actions. I wonder when reporting similar judge rulings will be commonly banned. I also wonder who else is behind that judge’s ruling.
If anyone thinks this is new, think again. During my years working in “Law and Order”, I witnessed on occasions either the breaking of rules, or at least, bending them to suit the purpose of the court. Of course, this was all done to protect the “Establishment”, and as such, it will ever be. The only reason such events come to light nowadays, is that we, the proletariat, have greater access to information, previously denied to us.
Supporting Liberty (formerly NCCL National Council for Civil Liberties) and the Good Law Project may be good places to start to countenance this unacceptable judgment/restraint of speech in defence of our liberties, especially for people whose whole motivation is trying save us from indescribable climate catastrophe.
This is an extremely worrying development. Until now, I have been comforted by the knowledge that however crazy the Government becomes, we still had the protection of a mostly independent judiciary. If this judgement is allowed to stand, that is no longer the case. I mourn for my country.
This is an extremely worrying development. Until now, I have been comforted by the knowledge that however crazy the Government becomes, we still had the protection of a mostly independent judiciary. If this judgement is allowed to stand, that is no longer the case. I mourn for my country.
The Lords resist
Public Order Bill : Peer defeat plan to curb protest disruption
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64561868
Good
This sort of thing is why I’m concerned about the upcoming Online Safety Bill – not because I disagree with what is being proposed on paper but rather how the Tories (or even Labour at this point) could and likely would use the precedent to pursue those who are not following their brands of neoclassical economics as sponsoring “harmful” ideas.
It’ll be interesting to see is Starmer brings this up today in PMQ’s.
With his Crown Prosecution time, he should, but if he doesn’t, that will raise even more questions.
I presume you watched PMQs today. Not a word from Starmer about anything important; just agreeing with Sunak about agreeing with Zelenskyy.
Not to do with this thread, but today the SHA won seats on the executive, and now are to be kicked out of the labour party for criticising Streeting for wanting to have more private involvement in the NHS. Starmer is not a socialist. I expected him to have at least one question about the strikes this week, rather than ignoring them.
https://skwawkbox.org/2023/02/08/exclusive-labour-right-look-to-kick-out-sha-over-criticism-of-streeting-and-crushing-defeat-in-exec-elections/
Depressing. In fact Starmer was banned from the Society of Socialist Lawyers for not being socialist.
Thank you Richard , terrifying.
This seems troubling, for two reasons.
Firstly, the jury should be presented with the evidence and can then decide whether to convict or acquit for any reason. The defendant plainly thought he had some justification for his actions, and I don’t really understand the legal basis for the judge stopping the defendant from putting that evidence before the jury (except of course to make it more likely they would convict). Perhaps the judge considered it legally irrelevant, but shouldn’t the jury decide?
A deliberate breach of the judge’s direction is indeed a contempt of court, as the protester admitted (and I suspect no further punishment would have been ordered if he has taken the opportunity to apologies for the breach – it appears he was representing himself, so would be given a reasonable degree of latitude) but he was convicted of obstruction anyway. The sentence for this contempt looks heavy to me.
I’d like to see some commentary from a criminal barrister, but I hope some thought is being given to an appeal.
So do I
I saw this a few days ago – and couldnt believe it. I hoped it might be possible to appeal against such an obvious wrong – as you say Richard – I thought motivation was a key aspect of trying a case in British courts.
Maybe Liberty would indeed be the obvous people to take this up. Apparently Sunak is planning to replace the existing Human Rights Act.
You couldnt make any of this up – maybe most people just dont understand whats going on . And what about the Judges – ? Where are they ?
I wonder if the Good Law Project will be interested in this. I haven’t seen anything from them on this, but that’s not conclusive.
I lot of people won’t care about this due to their hostility towards protesting, and particularly climate protesting. And thus, in little steps, will our freedoms be eroded.
Can you imagine? An attacked person manages to turn their attackers weapon on them and kill them instead of becoming their victim. But they are not permitted to mention having been attacked at a subsequent trial for murder. Fascist ‘justice’.
In this case the crime is the inconvenience caused to the public (and police?) and the motivation is considered beyond the pale, irrelevant, whatever, and denied mention on penalty of contempt.
I hope someone/group steps up to help appeal this aberrant/abhorrent decision!
There’s a detail some may have missed. “Reid said he had reduced the sentence he would otherwise have given by a third because Nixon had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.” Surely the guilty plea must constitute an admission of mens rea. Had he pleaded Not Guilty and argued justification he would have had better grounds for refusing to be silenced, albeit at the risk of a harsher sentence. It still reeks of authoritarianism though.
He pleaded guilty to contempt, I think. They have yet to be sentenced for the public nuisance offence.
@ Stephen Nelson
What you say is arguable, but I would argue to the contrary (see my caveat about my lack of contemporary knowledge, being only a long-retired barrister) that the existence of men rea and a plea of Guilty are not necessarily linked.
Mens rea is one of the elements of an offence, the other is actus reus = a guilty action: one can do an actus reus with no mens rea (by reason of insanity or other mental defect).
Equally, you can have a mens rea and yet perform no actus reus (happens to most of us daily, or at least weekly, as far as perhaps occasioning ABH (Actual Bodily Harm. GBH is quite different – the harm is greater, and usually serves to demonstrate the intent)
Normally, in a criminal trial, the Prosecution would have to prove mens rea. In the case of murder, absent any indication of mental incapacity, the actus reus effectively establishes the mens rea (as is the case with GBH).
A Plea, by contrast, has no necessary link to the elements of the crime, so that pleading guilty to contempt need be seen as no different an item of evidence than when the accused gives his name to the Court when requested = a fact, and declared to be a fact.
My reading is that Nixon knew he was guilty of the offence, and so simply stated his “guilt” as a fact that the actus reus was real, with no necessary guilty intention (mens rea) either implied or present.
@AndrewDickie Thanks for that. We’re both operating on the basis of incomplete information, but my reading is that he pleaded guilty to the Nuisance offence and the contempt took place later. I’d forgotten about the element of actus reus. My training was long ago and criminal law was only a very minor part.
Silas Reid was the judge in the case – doubtless he would have found Adolf Eichmann not guilty of mass murder because Eichmannwas only following German law in organising the transport of Jews to the gas chambers (fact). Indeed, Eichmann was found to be wholly normal by psychiatrists assigned to his case. I am certain that Judge Reid thinks that he did the right thing – in the same way that Eichman throught he did the right thing. In both cases, morals and a broader view were excluded since if they were included a wholly different “view” would be formed …by the jury. Thus one concludes that unlike Eichmann, Reid knows what he is doing, knows that the only way to get a result (= put them all in jail) is to narrow the case down to something simple. I leave it to others as to whether he is a Tory-useful-idiot, tory-idiot or just an idiot.
Richard,
I haven’t read this whole thread, and somebody may already have made this point, but I’m astonished defence counsel didn’t seek a stay of process pending a ruling from the Court of Appeal.
For what the judge here has done is call into question the whole basis of a trial, indeed of ANY legal process.
Witnesses have to swear “to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth”
In consequence, in suspending part of the oath, the judge has a) invalidated and demeaned that oath to the point of nullity and b) placed the witness in the contradcictory position of being both a perjurer by constraint AND an oath-breaker!! If anyone is in contempt of court, it is the judge.
Even worse, if prosecution witnesses ARE allowed to tell the WHOLE truth, while defence witnesses are NOT, then the judge has betrayed and invalidated his basic raison d’etre, which is to produce “equality of arms” between competing claims, right from start,
al the way through to judgement, which is why judges do all they can to help LIP’s (Litigants in Person).
Frankly, I believe the Bar Council should suspend the judge, pending an investigation into a possible action of gross professional misconduct, and if proven, disbar him,
(PS: I only practised at the Bar very briefly, and late in my career, at the age of 58. Further, it is now 18 years since I practised, so that my knowledge, and even understanding, of the law as existing, may be not just flawed but totally misconstrued.
The same is true of my knowledge of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, and the extent to which it applies to judges, who may be entirely under Crown privilege, so that different criteria apply.
Accordingly, I offer the above as an item for discussion, perfectly prepared to concede to any commentator with a better knowledge and understanding of the law, the Code of Conduct and the oversight if the judiciary than mine.)
Andrew
There was no defence counsel: the person defended themselves
I think your comment about the judge entirely appropriate though.
Richard
@AndrewDickie This from the Barnsley Chronicle removes all doubt.
https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/article/24656/climate-change-campaigner-jailed
“The six-day trial started with Judge Silas Reid ruling that the four defendants could not refer to their motivations for blocking the motorway in their defence.
*As with the earlier Insulate Britain jury trials*, the defendants were each barred from referring to the climate crisis, insulation or fuel poverty during the trial.”
It appears there is a policy (set by the Home Office/Attorney General?) to subvert the rule of law. Not a gagging of a defendant who had pleaded or been found guilty but suppression of evidence a defendant may wish to place before the jury. My conclusion is the government is worried a jury might be swayed and be minded to acquit.
Thank you
This totally justifies my headline
By the same argument, if round the corner there had been an accident and I saw a car driving rapidly towards it, and I stood in the road to warn it, I would be committing the offence of obstruction. I would not be allowed to argue that I was trying to prevent an accident.
Climate change protests make me think of Sir Patrick Spens
“O laith, laith, were our gude Scots lords
To weet their cork-heel’d shoon!
But lang or a the play was play’d
They wat their hats aboon,”
Obstructing the road today is an offence, but when the road is underwater in 50 years time, who will be prosecuted?
Quite
Only if you’d been told that you were in contempt of court for doing so.
It would be useful to see a full transcript of the whole proceedings before rushing to judgement on what was actually done.
It looks to me like he was probably told he could say he was there to protest climate change and the cost of living crisis, but told he couldn’t use the court as a place to lecture the jury on his personal view of what climate change and the cost of living crisis is or means.
If he was allowed to engage in a lecture on what climate change is then I suspect the jury would be expected to receive another lecture from the prosecution about what it is and the whole process would become bogged down with long arguments over whether or not it is an existential crisis. Instead the jury was probably expected to use its own existing judgement on that matter.
I think you are wrong
The judge’s verbatim comments seem to make that clear, as does the reporting
Unfortunately we are really at the point of second and third hand reporting of what happened and we don’t have access to the full facts. There is a definite public interest in them being fully reported and until they are we will be unable to come to an informed decision.
It is difficult to comment without having more precise details. The charge? the plea? Even so it may not be the ‘fascism’ being suggested.
Assuming the issue was still one of liability to be determined by a Jury, it may be down to a simple matter of evidential rules. Failure by an advocate to put the case on a point in dispute will mean that the advocate tacitly accepts what that witness said on that point during their evidence-in-chief.
It will prevents the advocate (or defendant) being able to deal with this point in their closing speech, i.e. you can’t suggest in a speech that a witness is mistaken or lying about something, or is responsible for something, that you haven’t even asked them about, exploring why they might be mistaken, putting to them clearly that they are not telling the truth, or being clear about what it is suggested they have done. Failing to put your case on such a point will prevent the witness from being able to respond, prevent the prosecution from being able to respond and prevent the Judge or the jury from being able to assess the response.
Nobody actually says it anymore but it is the “I put it to you…” moment. It is essential.
Another possibility would be if the defendant had entered a guilty plea and then during sentencing disputed the prosecution facts. In this case a Newton hearing (R v Newton (1982) 77 CA 13) could take place and the prosecution can introduce evidence to support their version of facts. This wouldn’t allow a wide ranging speech or the introduction of new issues.
It may be that the defendant was restricted in what he could say to the tribunal but the likelihood is that in regard to the specific charge he had not ‘put the case’. These rules are there for fairness. A defence case has to be put to the witnesses in order that they can respond to it. If it is only raised at closing that would be unfair because a new piece of information was being introduced at a time when the prosecution witnesses could not respond to it. In the context of the attempt to create a level playing field in court it does make sense. On the other hand I wouldn’t suggest it is a level playing field from my experience.
There was no defence counsel
An unrepresented person was denied the chance to put their case
Even if that was because they did not follow a procedure a barrister would have known that results in an injustice
A wide judge would know that
This was not a wise judge
The defendant may have represented himself and thus been a litigant in person but the same rules and expectations apply to an LIP as to a professional. That in itself may seem unfair but there is no obligation in the rules to treat an LIP any differently to any other advocate. In practice the system does try to give a little flexibility to an LIP but the Judge doesn’t have to explain the rules of evidence to a self represented defendant.
From the information it is not clear why the defendant was prevented from arguing his climate change point. To a certain extent there are limitations. If a point is entirely irrelevant to the substance of the charge then it may be appropriate to restrict it.
Example, the charge is taking and driving away -Theft Act 1968, S.12.(1) ‘…if, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, he takes any conveyance for his own or another’s use or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it.’
The issues the prosecution must prove are 1). no consent, 2). no lawful authority, 3). it is a conveyance, 4). for his own or others use 5). he knows he has no authority 6). he drives it. These specific issues are the substance of the charge. If our perp took a BMW because he adores BMW’s and thinks they are the best cars ever this might be the rationale behind his actions and mindset but it is not a relevant issue in regard to the specifics of the offence. It may be a motive but it is not part of the mens rea of this offence.
Would it be reasonable for the defendant to give a wide ranging speech on the superiority of BMW cars and the manufacturing processes of BMW as part of his defence to this charge? Is there a point at which an issue is so removed from any of the specific criteria of the actus reus and the mens rea of an offence that it becomes irrelevant? In the instance of the highlighted case the specific nature of the charge may have been such that discussion of climate change was too remote an issue?
This is the Court attempting to balance its resources, time and the burden of a hearing against fairness to the defendant. This doesn’t necessarily equate to all and sundry being raised in the trial. You can go to speakers corner and give a speech.
The real injustice is the massive cuts to Legal Aid since the The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) came into force. When I started practice 27 years ago getting legal aid in Criminal cases was relatively easy. Now increasing numbers of people are being thrown to the wolves in Court with no legal aid. Limitations to remote issues are not fascistic but a legal system only the wealthy can access and where your life can be turned on its head by a criminal allegation and yet you don’t get any legal aid access to professional help is the real and deep injustice.
The judge said:
“During the trial I ruled you could not give evidence of your motivations for your actions, and could not refer, except in a very limited way, to climate change and the cost of living crisis.”
There would be no trial if he had pleaded guilty, so he pleaded not guilty to the main offence;
Closing speeches at the end are not evidence, they give a reminder to the jury of the salient points of the case. The defendant was not permitted to give EVIDENCE of motivation. An unrepresented defendant should be allowed latitude by the judge and if they raised, in evidence, something that had not been put to the prosecution, the judge could have recalled the prosecution witness(es).
My understanding of English ‘common’ law is that it derived from consolidating the widespread practices and customs around the land thus had broad support among its people. Once?
To deprive a jury (and the defendant) of clarity of motivation is to conduct a show trial worthy of a tawdry American TV show headed up by some narcissist celebrity judge with an audience to play to. It is evidence that the law operates for the benefit of the state more than for the people the state is supposed to serve. The jury is simply relegated to a group of box tickers. Their opinion as to whether an action is justified is to be prevented from being aired. I’d go as far as to say that this would appear to make juries redundant, which may be the ultimate aim?
In the desire to standardise law across the land, case law triumphed consistency over all. An original judgment must be followed forever regardless of how bad it was or how societal values and fears and goals have changed over the following centuries. A defendant claiming to be worried about global warming 250 years ago would have been mocked. Now, hopefully less so.
Consistency rules. But this would appear to be to satisfy the state rather than the people. Consistency is pragmatic: the judge of yesteryear said this is the law so that’s the end of the story; trial over; costs mitigated; never mind public opinion as seen through the eyes of twelve.
That the law operates to the benefit of the state rather than the people can also be seen in the practice of offering a bribe to a defendant for pleading guilty. Hey, plead guilty, help our statistics, help us on the budget side of things, and we’ll give you a few months off your tariff. It beggars belief that such a practice was ever allowed to operate in a ‘civilised country’. It’s a bribe, an inducement to lie (to oneself), and it is being offered by…a judge, in a ‘court of law’.
Of obvious concern here is that the defendant has defended himself, thoroughly unsuccessfully. Surely no legal representation worth his or her salt would have allowed this outcome? Was he simply unable to access representation due to not having the funds to do so?
I’m struck, checking back through this, that the first paragraph, with reference to the common law of England, almost makes me sound a bit like one of these Magna Carta types that have annoyed me no end since the mid-2010s, with their invasions of schools and hospitals, and fake writs and the like, and the threat of new Nuremberg style trials for their victims. That I’ve mentioned broad support for the common law in days of old almost makes me wonder if there is some sort of valid point they’re trying to convey, even if they choose to do so in the most incoherent and unhelpful and sometimes outright obnoxious and even threatening ways. Maybe this is where society eventually goes, down the American path. The sheer oppression of life just leads to widespread mental crises on a scale that eventually becomes unsustainable. I’d like to think England won’t end up like America, but the last decade is not filling me with hope.
I think there is more common law and precedent than you imply biut do not have time to address the issue. Perhaps others might?
Yet another example of the shocking authoritarianism become more and more prevalent in Britain.
Jury nullification is still possible in the UK (fortunately). It seems the judge didn’t want a repeat of the Extinction Rebellion case. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/23/jury-acquits-extinction-rebellion-protesters-despite-no-defence-in-law
I am shocked by what I have read here. My reason is that it appears that very few people were aware that protestors are being told that they can’t mention climate change or cost of living in their defence. I knew this because I belong to XR elders and grandparents and members were reporting that the very same thing was said to them before they appeared in Court. Most XR and Just Stop Oil members represent themselves but when the ban on mentioning climate change etc was made known to them they were advised to plea guilty in order to avoid a longer sentence. It would appear that the majority have accepted that advice because they were guilty of obstruction etc. Some ignored the advice and as a result are likely to receive prison sentences.
I am not a law expert but if anyone could give advice on what XR/Just Stop Oil could do to overturn or at least publicise these injustices I would be very grateful.
Anyone?
This particular judge evidently has a personal “thing” about environmental activists. See here regarding his directions to the jury in the case of two Extinction Rebellion protesters and the jury’s statement as read out to the court:
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2022/03/18/statement-on-canning-town-sentencing/
Thank you
Well, if the case goes to appeal (lets hope it does) and barristers/?law firm are employed for the defendant Daid Nixon, then the barristers and their clerks are going to have a field day with mens rea and actus reas, let alone the hundreds of previous Extinction Rebellion, Insukate Britain and Just Stop Oil protest cases in the last 3 years and seeing from the transcripts that climate change was mentioned by the defendants in most cases without judges intervening, The use of precedence, in this case, cannot be used as it has not been enforced by a judge before.
A disabled XR protester who sat on top of an aircraft for several hours at City Airport got off relatively lightly using the climate crisis as his defence.
Just a thought?
Is there an opportunity here?
If demonstrations are causing ‘harm’ , what is the definition of that harm? How are the parties such as passengers and commuters ‘injured’ by such action?
If the answer is based in some form of economic definition – ‘injuring’ efficiency, self -sufficiency, income, then could these principles be used to take action against a government and its polices?
The government is desperately trying to find people who say that they were harmed, I gather
The mens rea was the intention to cause the harm. He clearly did intend to cause the harm because that was the whole point of the protest. You’d be better off expounding on whether or not there was a reasonable excuse. That is something that the law commission has considered and you might be interested to read up what they’ve said about this.
He did not mean to cause harm
He meant to protest against harm
Please can you be a bit more specific about what you are referring to, Norma, when you say “That” (by which I assume you mean reasonable excuse?) “is something that the law commission has considered”.
The 2015 report on “Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public”? Decencyhttps://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/simplification-of-the-criminal-law-public-nuisance-and-outraging-public-decency/
There is not much there, beyond: “The defendant should not be guilty of the offence if his or her conduct was reasonable in the circumstances as he or she knew or believed them to be.”
Is there something else?
In short, if you cannot explain yourself in court (the mens rea element) then you cannot refer to any rights that you think you might have.
So to me, this is much more than about perverting the process of justice, its also an ablation of the rights any citizen thinks that they have in acting as they do, severing motive from the actus.
It is to put it bluntly, enforcing the wilful ignorance of the court to any rights that might exist or any other extenuating circumstances.
Who would have thought that a so-called capitalist democracy would resort to the show trial mentality it used to abhor in the Soviet era?
And that is what it is doing – it is making an example of people to put people off showing their feelings about these issues. It is using fear to control us.
Those of us who are students of Neo-liberalism will not be surprised at any of this. It was always a matter of ‘when’ and not ‘if’.
From Open Democracy about the case and similar ones. Written by someone who is waiting for his case to be heard.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/insulate-britain-activist-show-trials-prison-climate-protests/