A potential legal defence for causing criminal damage to prevent even greater catastrophe.
At the time of writing (February 2011) there is not a general ‘lawful excuse’ defence in Northern Ireland. However, in the draft Justice Bill 2010 the defense of lawful excuse is proposed at sections 37, 39 and 40. This is in relation to Conduct at Regulated Matches (sporting) and covers s37 – throwing of missiles; s39 – going onto the playing area; and s40 – possession of fireworks, flares, etc. Campaigners who may decide to use the platform of a national/international event such as a football, rugby match, etc, should be aware of the provisions contained in the draft Justice Bill – and the defence of lawful excuse.
The Criminal Damages (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 does, however, provide some level of defence of lawful excuse in certain situations – see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1977/426.
Lawful Excuse is provided for in the Criminal Damages Act 1971. As this Act applies only to England and Wales, the legal concept of 'Lawful Excuse' does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
‘Lawful Excuse’ is a legal justification for actually breaking the law. This legal defence is often used to justify acts of vandalism, trespass or illegal direct action, where it is argued that breaking the law will prevent greater catastrophe.
The concept of ‘Lawful Excuse’ comes from Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. While there is a general ‘self-defence excuse’ for any acts of violence, the concept of ‘lawful excuse’ relates specifically to criminal damage.
Like many legal issues, it is a complex and grey area. Certainly, just because you feel passionately about an issue will not give you any kind of clear ‘lawful excuse’ to commit criminal damage to the property of your campaign targets.
It is perhaps easiest to look at the concept of ‘Lawful Excuse’ in the context of a case study where it was successfully used:
Case study
In September 2008, six Greenpeace protestors were cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth, a coal-fired power station in Kent in South East England.
Photograph: Will Rose/Greenpeace
The protestors tried to close down the power station by climbing the smokestack and painting ‘Gordon’ on the chimney.
The protestors defended their actions by saying that they damaged property in order to prevent greater property damage that climate change caused by Kingsnorth would lead to. It was the first time that the ‘lawful excuse’ defence was used in the context of climate change, and specifically the property damage that climate change would cause.
The judge told the jury that in order for them to accept the ‘lawful excuse’ defence, they had to be satisfied that the actions the protestors had taken were due to an immediate need to protect property belonging to others.
So while in this landmark case, the ‘lawful excuse’ defence was recognised, a strong case will need to be made about whether causing property damage can directly prevent greater property damage.
For more information read the Guardian article on the acquittal, where you will also see a range of related articles.
Campaign Central RSS
Campaign Central Newsletter
Follow us on Twitter
Share this page
Join us on Facebook
View our YouTube Channel
Add your comment