A jury has been sworn in and sent away for the day in the trial of two Just Stop Oil activists, after two private jets were sprayed with orange paint in a protest at Stansted airport.
The group said at the time of the incident, on Thursday 20 June last year, that activists had entered the Essex airfield and used fire extinguishers filled with orange paint.
Jennifer Kowalski, 29, of Dumbarton, and Cole Macdonald, 23, of Baker Street, Brighton, both pleaded not guilty to criminal damage at an earlier hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court.
Prosecutors have alleged previously that the cost of cleaning up the paint was £52,000 although the full cost, including the damage to the fence and the amount needed to fund extra security, were not known at that time.
The pair were said to have used angle grinders to break through a fence at the airport, in Eseesx, at about 5am on Thursday 20 June before using fire extinguishers filled with paint.
The aircraft were owned by Prudential Insurance and by an investment group, according to the charge that was read to jurors.
Judge Alexander Mills told the 12 jurors, after they had been sworn in, that the trial was expected to finish this week.
He sent them away for the day, asking them to return tomorrow when the prosecution case is due to be opened.
The jury process will really be about whether the defence can convince them that the action was justified or proportionate. That’s a tough sell at the best of times, and lots of people have very strong opinions on the vandalism tactics used by this group. I don’t rate their chances, personally.
These people are absolute scum.
It’s not much money for these huge companies and let’s face it we do need to curb fossil fuels use and I assume these companies must invest heavily in fossil fuels to be targeted. How much publicity does a climate protest get compared to some direct action? Not much..
Does that not admit that they did, in fact, cause damage? Does that suggest that we can commit crimes if we believe it is for a just cause? If you start stretching that logic, you get some very absurd justifications, I’m sure you would agree.
Does publicity like this even result in positive change, or just resentment? For me, the ends do not justify the means, and certainly should not absolve them of the consequences, in my opinion.
The picture of the two of them in the Argus suggests that they are somewhat smug, entitled and have probably been very cosseted. (A lot to deduce from a photograph I know). I think a period of ‘hard stir’ may assist them in evaluating the risks when considering this type of behaviour in future.
But, alas, they will probably be let off with a metaphorical slap on the wrist.
I dunno about that, some of these vandals got really harsh sentencing.
Protests are good as long as you show your face, but if you cause damage like this case you should go to jail. Another case where paint was sprayed into engine of a military plane is terrorism.
That doesn’t make it terrorism; it’s just criminal damage. Let’s not get carried away now.
I hope she is ok
Greens and Labour will support her
Reform would probably send her to prison
We need to be mindful of mindfulness
Sometimes, if people feel strongly enough about a cause, they see an argument for criminal damage.
History is full of examples:
-The suffragettes, who threw bricks, stones, and even bombs at government buildings.
-CND, spray-painting their peace symbol on public walls.
-Black protesters in the 1980s, standing up against police brutality.
The list goes on. Campaign groups throughout history have often turned to acts of criminal damage to make their voices heard.