Six Greenpeace climate change activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage at a coal-fired power station in a verdict that is expected to embarrass the government and strengthen the anti-coal movement.
The jury of nine men and three women at Maidstone crown court cleared the six, five of whom had scaled a 200m tall chimney at Kingsnorth power station at Hoo, Kent in October 2007.
The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the world "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 where preventing property damage caused by climate change has been used as part of a "lawful excuse" defence in court. It is now expected to be used widely by environment groups.
The court had heard from Prof James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/10/activists.carbonemissions
So, that's kinda surprising. The first time such a defense has worked, not sure if it's the first time it's been tried. No doubt the testimony of Hansen helped sway the jurors. So, Hansen's webpage has the testimony he gave.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080910_Kingsnorth.pdf
And now, Anthony Watts is entreating in the States to have Hansen fired.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/
I can't find a single sentence where Hansen comes close to "siding with vandalism" as Watts put it. The closest I can find to Hansen even excusing them is this:
Recognition of these basic facts by the defendants, realization that the facts were also known by the government, utility, and fossil fuel industry, and realization that the actions needed to protect life and property of the present and future generations were not being taken undoubtedly played a role in the decision of the defendants to act as they did.
In the end it probably won't matter. On appeal I think it's most likely that the Judiciary in the UK will use this decision to place boundaries on the application of the lawful excuse defense. I mean, the implications for this kind of thing are pretty big.
Thoughts?