Weigh up protest rights before deciding JSO verdicts, Stonehenge jury told

To find three Just Stop Oil supporters guilty of damaging Stonehenge by spraying orange powder onto it a jury would have to be satisfied a conviction would be a proportionate interference in their rights to freedom of expression and protest, a court heard.

Rajan Naidu, 74, and University of Oxford student Niamh Lynch, 23, are accused of using two fire extinguishers filled with cornflour, talc and an orange dye to spray the World Heritage Site during a fossil fuel protest.

The two, together with Luke Watson, 36, targeted Stonehenge the day before last year’s summer solstice.

Salisbury Crown Court heard Watson had purchased the fire extinguishers and had driven his co-accused to the Wiltshire monument on the morning of the protest.

The three defendants each deny charges of damaging an ancient protected monument and causing a public nuisance.

During the trial, jurors were told it cost £620 to remove the orange powder from the stones.

Giving his legal directions following a 10-day trial, Judge Paul Dugdale told the jury they should decide the case on only the evidence heard in court and it was for the prosecution to prove their case.

He also warned them to put their own views about Just Stop Oil to one side when deliberating.

“You may have views in favour or against how they protest,” he said.

“These may be strong views, either way it’s important you don’t let your private opinion of Just Stop Oil affect your judgments you have to make in this case.”

The judge said as part of their deliberations the jury needed to consider the defendants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights to freedom of speech and freedom to protest.

“In any society there will be those whose opinions we agree with and those whose opinions we disagree,” he said.

“The essence of a free society and freedom of speech is that everyone’s entitled to express their opinion even when we disagree with what they say.

“If individuals disagree with what our Government is doing on certain matters they are entitled to protest about the Government’s actions or inactions.

“All of this is the essence of our free society. It’s how our society has developed over the centuries, and the reality is we are very fortunate to live in a free society.

“In a free society, courts, judges, juries cannot make decisions about the validity or legitimacy of various particular points of view.

“It is for the courts to protect, where it is appropriate, people’s right to speak about political things.

“There are times when protecting the right to freedom of speech and freedom to protest can mean that activity that would otherwise be unlawful would be regarded as lawful by the court to protect those rights.

“Intentionally disruptive action, protests etc that form part of a peaceful protest, even that which has more than minimal impact on the rights of other people, need not result in a conviction.

“It is all a matter of fact and degree.

“It requires balancing the defendants’ rights of free speech and protest against the rights of other people.

“With a degree of proportionality, the law protects the right to communicate information or ideas, even if some may regard what is being communicated as disturbing or even shocking.”

The judge said the jury had to assess where the “balance lies” in this case.

“For any of the defendants to be convicted on either count, you have to be sure not just that they had committed the elements of the offence but you also have to be sure that a conviction in all the circumstances of our case would be a proportionate interference with their human rights to express their opinions and protest against Government inaction,” he said.

“To convict any defendant on counts one or two you must be sure the conviction would be a proportionate interference with their rights to freedom of speech and freedom to protest.”

The judge explained that the defendants maintained it was a peaceful protest, that the rights of others were not “greatly interfered with”, that care had been taken in choosing the type of powder to use, there was no lasting damage to the stones, and that protesting about fossil fuels was a legitimate cause.

On the other hand, he said, the prosecution asserted that convictions would be proportionate, the protest did not need to take place at Stonehenge, which has no connection with issues of climate change, and carrying out the protest did not need to involve spraying the stones.

Naidu, of Gosford Street, Birmingham; Lynch, of Norfolk Road, Turvey, Bedford; and Watson, of The Street, Manuden, Essex, each deny charges of damaging an ancient protected monument and causing a public nuisance.

The trial continues.