Respondents tying themselves to tractors to protest against planting of genetically modified crops — Respondents being charged with trespass under section 68 of Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 — Whether respondents having common law defence of justified force — Appeal allowed
A third party owned farmland that was being seeded with genetically modified crops as part of a government experiment. The respondents entered onto the land without permission, and attached themselves to various tractors as a means of protest. They were subsequently arrested. It was common ground that they were trespassers within the meaning of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and they were charged with aggravated trespass under section 68. In their defence, they claimed that their actions were reasonable in the circumstances, given that they were attempting to protect the surrounding locality.
At first instance, the judge found that the respondents were aggravated trespassers within the meaning of the 1994 Act. However, he dismissed the charges on the ground that their actions had been undertaken as a result of their genuine and honestly held beliefs about the dangers of genetically modified crops, and their fears for the surrounding property, which gave them a defence at common law. The case was appealed by way of case stated. The question for the court was whether the respondents’ actions, in attaching themselves to tractors in the defence of property, were reasonable.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
In the instant case, all the elements of the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68(1)(c) were present. In considering a defence of lawful justification, as put forward by the respondents, the court had to determine, as a matter of law, whether the defence was available on the facts. At common law, a person could use a proportionate degree of force to defend himself, others, or property belonging to himself or others, but a requisite ingredient of such a defence was that the feared act was unlawful or criminal: see, for example, Legislating the Criminal Code: Offences Against the Person and General Principles (1993) Law Com No 218, at pp106-110.
The act of planting a genetically modified seed was not unlawful or criminal. The judge at first instance had erred in disregarding this element of the defence. Accordingly, he should have directed himself that the defence of private defence or protective force was not available to the respondents on the facts.
The matter was remitted with a direction to convict.
Francis Chamberlain (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, of Bournemouth) appeared for the appellant; Nerida Harford-Bell and Anya Lewis (instructed by Bindman & Partners) appeared for the first, second and fourth respondents; the third respondent appeared in person.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
