The 'technically guilty but morally innocent' have been acquitted before. BoaF has already linked to
these articles and I linked to
this collection. To summarise for those who avoid links (in chronological order):
1996
The Ploughshare Four - Angie Zelter, Joanna Wilson, Lotta Kronlid, and Andrea Needham - used hammers to cause £1.5m of damage to a recently built multi-purpose Hawk which has been destined for Indonesia where it was most likely to be used against civilians in East Timor. They claimed their actions were reasonable under the Genocide Act and because they used reasonable force to prevent a crime. The jury found them not guilty. Three years later the British government
admitted that "British-made jets were being used by the Indonesians to intimidate the people of East Timor".
BoaF's article ends by saying that "The judgment.. will have repercussions in international jurisprudence and diplomacy". Yet
this piece from 2017 notes that,
20 years on from the Ploughshares case, Britain is still very successful at selling arms abroad. In the latest figures published by the Department of Trade and Industry, the UK is said, to be the second largest global defence exporter on a rolling ten-year basis.
It seems those 'repercussions' were limited.
1999
Rosie James and Rachel Wenham
swam to a Trident submarine docked in Barrow-in-Furness, painted "illegal" and "Death Machine" on it, put a banner saying "Women Want Peace" over the conning tower and damaged equipment. They were accused of causing £25,000 of criminal damage. The first trial was halted because of screw-ups by the prosecution (my editorialising). The second trial found them not guilty of criminal damage but couldn't come to an agreement on the main charge of disarming radar-testing equipment.
The jury were only allowed to consider the very narrow grounds of defence of necessity and self defence allowed under English law, the judge having ruled out defences based on international law... [making] the extraordinary statement that “crimes against humanity are not crimes in English law
A third trial followed and the jury, again, were unable to reach a verdict.
(Scotland) - Angie Zelter, Ellen Moxley and Ulla Roder were charged with causing £80,000 of damage to a Trident-related acoustic barge. They argued that they had exercised their legal right to prevent a crime as Trident could not be used in a way that was lawful under international law, and that while their actions were "willful, they had not been malicious". The sheriff agreed and instructed the jury
to acquit the women, which they did. Interestingly, the Lord Advocate said he intended to refer the case to the
Court of Criminal Appeal due to the decision, in a move reminiscent of that by the Attorney General today. The clarification can be seen
here (I haven't read it, it's really long!).
2001
Sylvia Boyes and River
entered a dockyard with the intention of disarming a Trident submarine with an axe. "They denied criminal damage, claiming their actions were justifed because nuclear weapons were immoral and illegal under international law." The judge told the jury that "ideals formed no defence against a criminal damage charge" yet they decided to acquit them anyway.
Lord Melchett (executive director of Greenpeace, not the one from Blackadder) and 27 other protestors admitted
destroying GM crops "but said that acting to prevent pollen from the genetically-modified maize from polluting neighbouring organic crops and gardens". The jury acquitted them.
2007
Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard broke into an RAF site in 2003 - the day before bombing in Iraq began - with the intention of clogging the engines of US
B52 bombers. They pleaded "not guilty... to conspiring to cause criminal damage, claiming the B52s would have been used to commit war crimes in Iraq." They had been tried the year before but the jury failed to reach a verdict. The second time round the jury acquitted them of all charges.
2008
Ben Stewart, Will Rose, Kevin Drake, Tim Hewke, Huw Williams and Emily Hall were accused of causing £30,0000 of criminal damage at a
coal-fired power station.
The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the word "Gordon" down the chimney, but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world. It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a "lawful excuse" defence in court.
The jury acquitted them by a majority verdict.
2017
Rev Daniel Woodhouse and Samuel Walton broke into site owned by BAE systems with the intention of disarming Tornado jets being used by Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen. They did not succeed, being stopped by security. Both admitted to their actions and their intent, arguing that they acted "for the greater good"*.
A district judge in Burnley accepted their beliefs were sincerely held and found them not guilty.
2019
Roger Hallam sprayed the walls of Kings College, London, with the words “divest from oil and gas” in protest against its fossil fuel investments. He did not deny causing criminal damage estimated at £7,000 but
argued that "his actions were lawful because there was an exemption in the Criminal Damage Act that permits damage if it protects others’ property." While the judge ruled that the issue of climate change was “irrelevant” to the case, the jury still acquitted him of all charges.
2021
Simon Bramwell, Ian Bray, Jane Augsburger, Senan Clifford, David Lamber, and James “Sid” Saunders were accused of causing criminal damage to
Shell's London headquarters. They argued that their actions were a "necessary" and "proportionate" response to the harm caused by Shell.
Judge Gregory Perrins directed jurors that even if they thought the protesters were “morally justified”, it did not provide them with a lawful excuse to commit criminal damage.
Despite this, the jury acquitted them.
Dr Diana Warner, Ruth Jarman, Ian Bray, Richard Barnard, Nick Cooper and Phil Kingston were charged with "obstructing trains or carriages on the railway" following their protest which targeted the
Docklands Light Railway. They acknowledged their roles in the protest but "argued that their action was a lawful protest against government inaction on the climate crisis". They were found not guilty with a unanimous verdict.
I doubt this is an exhaustive list but I think it is sufficient to show that the arguments made by the defence in the trial of the Colston Four follow a well-established legal precedent and those arguments have been accepted by juries around the country. I don't know how many of these sorts of cases are unsuccessful, and it may be that successful defences are the exception rather than the rule. But the arguments made and the decision reached by the jury are not in any way unprecedented and anyone treating them otherwise needs to calm down.
* The greater good