—post deleted by hacker/ WordPress then I reinstated it on April 4

Opinion by Mathew Carr

March 20, 2024: Key bits of the confusing UK Court of Appeal decision of March 18 — see below:

What the Attorney General asked (according to the judges):

3. Pursuant to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, the AG has referred to this
Court two points of law said to have arisen in C’s (claimant’s) trial and upon which she desires the
opinion of the Court. The points of law are as follows:

“1. What matters are capable, in law, of being the “circumstances” of
destruction or damage under section 5(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act
1971? In particular,
a. if the destruction or damage is an act of protest, are “circumstances” in
the phrase “the destruction or damage and its circumstances” capable
as a matter of law of including the merits, urgency or importance of
any matter about which the defendant may be protesting by causing the
destruction or damage, or the perceived need to draw attention to a
cause or situation?
b. if there is no direct nexus between the destruction or damage and the
matters on which the defence rely as “circumstances”, can those
matters still be “circumstances” within the meaning of the phrase “the
destruction or damage and its circumstances”?

2. Was the Judge right to rule:
   a. before the case was opened to the jury; and
   b. at the conclusion of the evidence
   that the defence should not be [CARRZEE: OR SHOULD BE?] withdrawn from the jury?”

—–

Judges:

THE LADY CARR OF WALTON-ON-THE-HILL [my namesake – no relation, as far as I know]
THE LADY CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES

LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
and

MR JUSTICE GARNHAM

The answers from the three judges and my comments

65. In those circumstances, we provide the following answers to the first questions of law
posed by the AG:

i)[should be a instead of i] “Circumstances” in the phrase “the destruction or damage and its
circumstances” do not include the merits, urgency or importance of the
matter about which the defendant is protesting, nor the perceived need
to draw attention to a cause or situation.

[CarrZee – Telling the jury what are the relevant circumstances is judicial overreach (executive branch overreach for even asking the judges for clarity). The circumstances are for the jury to decide.]

ii) [should be b] “Damage and its circumstances” means the damage and the
circumstances of the damage which, in protest cases, means the fact
that the damage was caused as part of a protest (against a particular
cause).

[This is confusing – the jury should decide whether there’s a “direct nexus between the destruction or damage and the matters on which the defence rely as ‘circumstances'”]

66. We decline to answer the second question posed in the Reference but have set out
    above our views on the point of law which arises.

[I contend the judges declined to answer because they know the Judge was NOT right to rule:
“a. before the case was opened to the jury; and
b. at the conclusion of the evidence
that the defence should []be withdrawn from the jury?”]

Plan B, Defend Our Juries’ Take on the Decision:

See Tim Crosland here:

Court of Appeal Rules Climate Crisis A Matter of ‘Opinion’