Does the XR vs. Shell case create precedent for environmental activism being necessary? Six Extinction Rebellion activists were charged with criminal damage to the Shell HQ building in London’s Waterloo in April 2019. All admitted the actions, and five of the six relied on the defense that their actions were necessary, in that their actions that day were required to prevent greater harm, specifically that they raise the alarm about the threat of climate change and pressure the UK government to act. The judge directed the jury that these 5 defendants had no defense under the law. The sixth defendant claimed that he believed Shell (considered as a whole, including all the staff, shareholders and management) would have consented to his actions, and this was accepted by the judge as recognised under law. All six were found not guilty by the jury. Does this create precedent for environmental activism being necessary, such that it could be cited in subsequent cases to demonstrate that similar action may be protected by the law?
Does this create precedent? NO This was a Crown Court case, only the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal can set precedent which it did with similar circumstances in R v Hill 1989
The law does not require any reference to science of any kind – that is a political choice. The law grant a certain authority to the governor, under certain circumstances, go give extraordinary orders at the governor's discretion. No actions are mandatory during an emergency. The laws may or may not require legislative approval for extending an order beyond a certain point, where the order is issue pursuant to declaring a state of emergency. There are two main bases for appealing to the courts to enjoin against some aspect of an order: lack of initial authority (the statute does not actually grant that power), or, violation of fundamental constitutional rights. The latter is the predominant basis for appeal in the present instances.
united-kingdom Yes. The landmark case in the UK is Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart, where the House of Lords*: established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege *Strictly speaking, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, which functioned as the UK's highest court before the creation of the Supreme Court.
In Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), the Supreme Court held that &quot;there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.&quot; The Court was unanimous on this point. This means that right now, there is no way to sue for a damages remedy for First Amendment retaliation by federal officials. The majority said that &quot;Congress, not the courts, is better suited to authorize such a damages remedy.&quot;
There is a Defense of &quot;Necessity&quot; which would apply in such cases, even if the law had no intent element.. This essentially allows as a defense to an accusation of crime that the actions were essential to prevent harm. Dee, for example Justia's page on The Criminal Defense of Necessity. There it is said: The defense of necessity may apply when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency situation in order to prevent a greater harm from happening. In such circumstances, our legal system typically excuses the individual’s criminal act because it was justified, or finds that no criminal act has occurred. Although necessity may seem like a defense that would be commonly invoked by defendants seeking to avoid criminal charges, its application is limited by several important requirements: The defendant must reasonably have believed that there was an actual and specific threat that required immediate action The defendant must have had no realistic alternative to completing the criminal act The harm caused by the criminal act must not be greater than the harm avoided The defendant did not himself contribute to or cause the threat Only if all of these requirements are met, will the defense of necessity be applicable. It is also important to note that in some jurisdictions, necessity is never a defense to the killing of another individual, no matter what threat they may present. The Justia page goes on to describe the elements of the defense in detail. See also The Wikipedia artifcel which makes many of the same points. Necessity is a broader defense than the intent or willfulness requirements of particular laws, because it applied even when the law does nor contain such an element. However, it has its own strict limits, described above. The exact scope of this defense differs in different jurisdictions.
None, if the intention is merely trespassing, unlike burglary which requires intent to steal, commit criminal damage, or inflict grevious bodily harm or if the building is a protected site - neither of which isn't evident from the question. Note, for both offences, the actus reus is entry - there is no requirement for any form of &quot;breaking&quot; Further to ohwilleke's comment, unless the lock is damaged or destroyed etc, then there is no offence of criminal damage
The burden for proving claims in civil actions is "preponderance of evidence," i.e., merely that "more than 50% of the evidence favors a conclusion." However, the standard for conviction of any crime is "beyond a reasonable doubt." I.e., if the defense can raise reasonable doubt about one's guilt then the defendant should be acquitted. There is quite a bit of space between the two standards, which is compounded by prosecutorial discretion to even bring criminal charges.
Yes The directors of a company have a fiduciary duty to act within the law for the benefit of their shareholders - not to their customers, not to the government, not to the environment and not to the public. A lawsuit against the company will incur financial loss irrespective of if it is won or lost. It is difficult to see how it is in the shareholder's interest for the company to be enabling the funding of a lawsuit against it.