On 28 April 2022, Just Stop Oil supporters blocked the entrances to Clacket Lane Services on the M25 by sitting in the road with Just Stop Oil banners. They also decommissioned the petrol pumps by breaking the display glass and covering it with spray paint. This action was taken in support of their demand for the UK government to end all new oil and gas projects in the country.
In a unanimous verdict delivered today by a jury at Guildford Crown Court, Just Stop Oil supporters Nathan McGovern, Rosa Sharkey, and Louis Hawkins were found not guilty of causing criminal damage.
Any jury may consider that the law itself is unjust. It is an important principle and indicates public opposition to aspects of law, in this case, the ‘lawful’ behaviour of fossil fuel corporations.
Was this jury nullification in action?
It seems like it probably was. Since none of their defences were allowed, then the jury had to simply decide factually whether the acts occurred. “We didn’t do that” is one type of defense, so it stands to reason they didn’t offer that defence and the acts themselves weren’t disputed in the case.
This article says specifically that:
[The court] has ruled that mass loss of life from climate breakdown and the government’s failure to act on the science are irrelevant to the circumstances of an action, for the purposes of the defence of consent to damage to property. That is – protesters deeply-held and factual beliefs are no defence.
So the defendants weren’t saying they didn’t do it, and why would they? It was a demonstration, and claiming it never happened would defeat the purpose.
So that means that as a simple matter of law it’s open and shut. They admit they did it, and they don’t have any legally allowed defense for their actions. However, the jury are judges of fact, and the only way they can find them not guilty is if they determine that actually no they didn’t do it.
That flies in the face of the cases presented to them, so it has to be jury nullification. I assume there was someone in the jury who knew about that loophole and informed their peers.
I don’t see any mainstream outlets reporting on this - shocker I know. The neoliberal hegemon isn’t going to want people talking about this, because they avoid jury nullification by just not talking about it and implying in court that the jury has to follow the law. If this news starts to spread and people start talking about it, it’s going to get harder and harder to find juries that don’t know about nullification and then these acts are going to get very hard to prosecute in a way that is seen to be legitimate.
Was here to say jury nullification rocks. So many more people should know.
This should be a claxon in the ears of the ruling class that they are facing dire consequences in the near future if they don’t change shit like yesterday.
Jury nullification is powerful partly because you need to get a group of 12 strangers together who have been vetted to remove bias, to all unanimously agree to say, in effect, “fuck the law”. The more people realise this is an option, the more it will happen, and the more it happens the more it will become obvious that we are being screwed and our oppressors want it to happen. They should be shitting themselves right now.
Instead nobody’s reporting on it, not even the centrist style conservatives, and the very wealthy have clogged their ears with reactionary rhetoric that will stop them hearing the alarm until it’s far too late.
Removed by mod
They didn’t lose the support of 12 out of 12 jury members. You’re lying about something we can all see right in front of us. This verdict proves you’re wrong and is a massive win for this movement. So weird that you chose this story to get on your high horse about.
Also terrorism? To who? Petrol pumps?
Complain all you want, but if you dare do something about the injustice being inflicted on you, that’s where you lose me! - Troed
That’s what you sound like. Are you ok with sounding like a moron?
Terrorism? Really?
If you think that is terrorism, just wait a few years to see what relegating climate activism to polite asks will do. Letting corporations destroy our planet will directly lead to more violence and destruction, and it will only get worse the more we rely on their benevolence.
Destroying items is destruction of property, usually that is a crime but its farm from terrorism. Unless you really believe that ceo’s are cowering under their beds in fear because first a gaspump, second must be storming their private islands with guns?
Just like with other laws there are exceptions where something does and does not count as a crime.
Accidentally killing a home invader in self defense isn’t murder either.
Obviously i dont know what truly goes on in any judges head but considering that industrialist have been actively involved in covering up how much environmental damage they have actually done to populated areas. (Exploit underground water during times of drought causing cracks and collapses in hundreds of familie homes to give you a single example of something i know happens)
If one considers that i believe there is a good argument agains dismantling the tools of oil companies in the name of self defense.
Industries should not pretend to feel terrorizes by some ecologists and climate conscious youth. The people are getting terrorizing by systemic exploitation of commons for nothing but the greed of a few for ages.
The damages a small group of people can do to a few gas pumps is far far less than the damages they are trying to prevent. It’s terrorism in your head because the corporations are operating “business as usual”, but business as usual for a lot of industries is eco or economic terrorism on a mass scale. If rules only exist for the poor, we need to find a way for society to course correct those who will continue to do the world harm.
How else can we make a difference? Calling a representative? Voting? Sure, but our voices are farts in the wind compared to ThE aLmIgHtY pRoFiT mArGiN, even for politicians
