Aggravated Trespass - Not Guilty: 19/05/21

Court date



City of London Magistrates’ – Court 2

Hearing date:


Tuesday, 19th May 2021

Bench (DJ or JPs)

Lay Bench

Charged with:


Aggravated Trespass on 8/10/19 at The Home Office, Fry Building, 2 Marsham St.
Section 68(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Represented by:


Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.


He had been supporting a friend, Margaret Turner. He had no intention of glueing on to a security entrance ‘pod’. He was handed a tube of glue by another protester, as he looked at it, it was taken by a police woman. Defendant was dressed ina suit and tie, he acted politely throughout the trial, even thanking the police witnesses for attending, to which one said he had no choice, it was the court’s order. Laughter all round (I say this to illustrate the almost over-polite manner in which Defendant conducted his defence).

He checked with the arresting officer as to which type of aggravated trespass he was arrested under. The officer didn’t seem to realise there was a choice of 3. Once intimidation, obstruction and disruption were given, he chose obstruction. But he was seated in front of a pod, and if someone had needed to go through, he (and Ms. Turner) would have moved. No-one came through because the police were redirecting staff to another entrance down the road which Security had opened up.

Defendant insisted that the staff entrance was chosen to minimally disrupt the workings of the Home Office. The officer in charge said there were 50-60 people who were obstructed, Defendant said 10 – the bench believed Defendant.

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?


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

He was the sole defence witness.


What was the verdict,
sentence, costs?



The bench found Defendant was conscientious and truthful in his presentation.  Intimidation: it was never in dispute. Obstruction: he did not glue himself to the pod, and would have moved if asked. Disruption: “he made the case that disruption was not significant and was within his human rights”,  staff had another entrance they could use. Charge not proven.

Please add anything else relevant.


More than anything, Defendant’s demeanour and politeness led the bench to believe every word he said. This is shown in them believing his lack of intention to glue on; he was only supporting a friend, and he never intended to stop the Home Office working, only to draw attention to the government’s inaction over refugees.