Yesterday (19th July) a group of 16 Extinction Rebellion protestors were up in court defending themselves from wilfully obstructing a public highway (Newfoundland Road and Temple Way by the M32). The defence being used is similar to that of the Fairford Five during the Iraq War, that legally you are allowed to commit a smaller crime to prevent a bigger one. In the case of the Fairford Five, protestors broke into the US airbase in Fairford seeking to stop aircraft from taking off, in order to prevent the bombing of Iraq and so civilian deaths. The defence works like this; if you were outside a house and hears screaming from inside, you would be within your rights to break into that house if you believed an attacking was taking place inside. One of the defendants has said that the actions at the XR protest were; “the defence of necessity and the prevention of a greater crime, human rights and freedom of expression”. Another says she, “.. was acting in conscience to prevent greater harm. I did what I did because I saw that by blocking a road and getting it into a conversation, it got the Government to raise a climate emergency.” So in effect denying the charge because they acted ‘with lawful excuse’.

The group will be tried in three groups on Septembers 4th, 9th and 11th, so we don’t yet know how the cases will go, however it is worth noting that, while it was a long struggle, ultimately the Fairford Five won. IN that case either being found ‘not guilty’ or acquitted or only on minor charges (as originally the government was pushing for serious long-term prison charges). The case also put pressure on the government over its legal advice on the war as the (il)legality of the war was part of the ‘lawful excuse’ of the actions the protestors were accused of. In hindsight the case put the government on trial as much as it did the defendants.