High Court Rules...

[Vinty]

I would also be justified in breaking in to his premises

You could call the police instead.

 

[motorbiking]

The scenario Himmy describes is already likely to be lawful. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. We discussed it on another thread, where Nosenout was caught posting AI rubbish that his links didn't back up.
The scenario you describe is also covered by law and has been discussed. Foreign Enlistment Act 1870

 

[MNW67]

There may not be a legal defence in law, but committing a lesser offence in order to prevent a more serious offence is justifiable.

It is a very limited defence and only applies in extreme cases where there is an immediate danger.

Some of the jury agreed.

We have no idea of the reasons for the jury's decision.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario.
I'm convinced that a neighbour is making a bomb to use in a terrorist act.
While he's away from the premises, I break in, and I'm in the process of destroying his apparatus, when he returns and attacks me. I'd be justified in defending myself, or an assistant in the process of destroying the weapons.
I would also be justified in breaking in to his premises.

It would have to be an immediate danger. You would have to believe that the bomb had been set to go off and that there wasn't time to call the police.

 

[motorbiking]

To be fair that is the scenario Himmy is describing. most of it is covered by Criminal Damage Act 1971 Sec 5,2 (b),common law of self defence, s3 Criminal Law Act 1967, which we've done to death.

Unfortunately it is Sec 5,3 Criminal Damage act that is frequently used to get off convictions. This is why the CPS try anything other than standard criminal damage.

 

[MNW67]

To be fair that is the scenario Himmy is describing. most of it is covered by Criminal Damage Act 1971 Sec 5,2 (b),common law of self defence, s3 Criminal Law Act 1967, which we've done to death.

Unfortunately it is Sec 5,3 Criminal Damage act that is frequently used to get off convictions. This is why the CPS try anything other than standard criminal damage.

I don't see why. It is clear that, for the defence to succeed, the action has to be to stop an immediate threat:

'(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—

(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.'

If you apply that section to the Elbit attack. The defendants would have to argue that they honestly believed that smashing computers and toilets in a factory in Bristol would stop Israel using the weapons, which had already been manufactured and transported to Israel, in an attack against Gaza within the next few minutes.

 

[motorbiking]

(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.'

It's this bit that is not helpful to a prosecution.

It's there to protect genuine mistakes.

 

[MNW67]

It's this bit that is not helpful to a prosecution.

It's there to protect genuine mistakes.

I know.

That is where cross examination comes in.

When the defendant says:

'I thought that by smashing a toilet in a factory in Bristol I would stop Israel from launching an imminent drone attack on Gaza'

The prosecution barrister would ask pointed questions, such as:

'What led you to believe that smashing a toilet in a factory in Bristol would stop Israel from launching an imminent drone attack on Gaza'

And when the defendant cannot give any sort of coherent answer, the jury would choose not to believe him. Or, as in this case, the judge would rule that it was utter nonsense and tell the jury to ignore that line of defence.

 

[motorbiking]

and yet I vaguely remember the prosector conceding that point. I will have a search. I thought it odd at the time.

 

[morqthana]

If you create a scenario that is different from the facts then it’s irrelevant. My statement was based on the undisputed facts,

So these undisputed facts about the actions of Palestine Action in the UK mean that at no time whatsoever, anywhere whatsoever, in the whole of human history, has it ever been justified for people to attack military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully?

Really?

We were not at war, we still aren’t, they could not justify their actions. Zero defence. Therefore nothing can justify their attacks.

Were the East Berliners justified in damaging the Wall?

Were the ANC justified in bombing unoccupied government buildings?

 

[morqthana]

Foreign Enlistment Act 1870

Are we going to see UK citizens who've gone to fight with the IDF or the Ukranian forces prosecuted?

 

[motorbiking]

So these undisputed facts about the actions of Palestine Action in the UK mean that at no time whatsoever, anywhere whatsoever, in the whole of human history, has it ever been justified for people to attack military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully?

Really?




Were the East Berliners justified in damaging the Wall?

Were the ANC justified in bombing unoccupied government buildings?

You gave it your best shot, with a little more knowledge you could have challenged my statement using s5,3 criminal damage act.

That had more legs than being at war.

 

[MNW67]

You gave it your best shot, with a little more knowledge you could have challenged my statement using s5,3 criminal damage act.

That had more legs than being at war.

All these type of defences require an immediate danger which the normally unlawful action stops. Whether that is the common law defences of necessity and duress of circumstances, or the statutory defence of 'lawful excuse' under S 5 (3).

If the defendants were arguing that they believed damaging the factory would hamper the Israeli attacks in say six months time, then the defence doesn't fly. It has to be immediate.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

"NOTHING can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully" is wrong, and that sometimes it is justified, and therefore the debate is about where to draw the line, not whether it exists or not.

Honestly, I give up reading when there are big bold capitals involved.

 

[motorbiking]

All these type of defences require an immediate danger which the normally unlawful action stops. Whether that is the common law defences of necessity and duress of circumstances, or the statutory defence of 'lawful excuse' under S 5 (3).

If the defendants were arguing that they believed damaging the factory would hamper the Israeli attacks in say six months time, then the defence doesn't fly. It has to be immediate.

It had more legs than someone somewhere is at war and this is the action of legitimate military combatants.

 

[morqthana]

You gave it your best shot, with a little more knowledge you could have challenged my statement using s5,3 criminal damage act.

That had more legs than being at war.

I would say that you still don't get it, but I actually think you do, but don't to admit it.

As I said, "nothing" is an absolute. Used with no qualifications it permits not one exception. So your statement meant that at no time whatsoever, anywhere whatsoever, in any circumstances whatsoever, in the whole of human history, has it ever been justified for people to attack military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully.

I think you now realise that that was far too sweeping, but you won't back down.

Were the East Berliners justified in damaging the Wall?

Were the ANC justified in bombing unoccupied government buildings?