Jury finds Just Stop Oil supporters not guilty in petrol pump case – Just Stop Oil
juststopoil.org
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 exceeding £5,000. [1] During the trial, Judge Sellers ruled that none of the defence’s three arguments would be allowed for the jury to

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.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
      22·
      6 months ago

      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.