Section 14 - Guilty: 18/12/19

Court date



City of London   Court 2

Hearing date:


18.12.19  (day 2 of trial)

Bench (DJ or JPs)


DJ snow 

Charged with:


Section 14 public order act, Waterloo bridge, April 16th

Represented by:



Please outline prosecution and defence case(s).


Defendant gave statement.


Arguing Necessity for the reasons for his actions.

Cited “necessary and proportionate “


Explained his own history of action and involvement in the movement, going back to 1970, through both direct action and in the music industry, and lifestyle changes.

Stated his belief that the conventional channels of protest have not brought about any improvements

Talked about the broad range of people on the protest. Judge countered that at a Naomi Klein talk recently we only saw white middle class people. Defendant argues that this is changing.

Cited the parliament climate change meeting in parliament in February 19 attended by only  20 MPs .


Gave details of his arrest on the bridge.


Cited the climate emergency parliament declaration as vindication of the XR strategy, pointing out the number of councils who have followed suit.


Maintains that the protest has brought about an “open space “in the public consciousness, which is usually dominated by issues that they see as affecting them more such as Brexit and the economy. There is a recognition now that we must act, rather than a debate about whether we should act.



CPS cross examining – arguing that the arresting officers made their intentions clear, and gave Defendant opportunity to comply



Defendant cited the unclear evidence given by Ch Insp Mc Millan.

Defendant felt that the S14 order was made in a somewhat cavalier fashion.

Judge asked if Defendant accepts that XR presence on bridge caused “serious disruption” gave example of person on a zero hours contract who cannot get to work and cannot feed their families, and asked about their rights in contrast

Defendant expressed empathy with that person, but points out that those people, in the next few decades, will be facing catastrophe, and so his action was necessary



Defendants closing statement – cited Ch Insp Mc Millan’s evidence, as being very loose on HR, something that a person in his position should be very well trained on.

Quoted a police training manual stating that all police officers must be conversant with the HR 1998 act

For the chief inspector to go into the witness box and say that he is acting as a

“layman” (as he had done in a previous case)  is not consistent with his duties as properly  trained  official

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?



Did defence witness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?




What was the verdict?



Reasons – judge dismissing the defence of necessity, saying “there must be a nexus, and a proximity between action and the person you are trying to save “

Example he gave is that you break into a building with bomb inside to save someone and there is a clear connection with the person you are trying to save.


In this case the connections to future generations and to other countries are too remote and do not constitute Necessity. He said that you are not able to specify the particular person you are trying to save


On the other issues, on the communication of the order, he was satisfied with the procedures carried out


What was the sentence?


9 month conditional discharges, 300 plus 20


CPS asking 775, defence asking for 1550 split between the defendants according t the CPS guidelines – judge saying substantial resources have been used


What costs were awarded?



Please add anything else relevant.


 Defendant informed judge that it’s possible to get to Copenhagen and the arctic circle by train and ferry, after he had asked him about some of his previous activities

Judge interested in the change in green vote in the two recent elections