Protests - Potential offences during protests, demonstrations, or campaigns - Annex A

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

A person commits an offence if they:

• organise or carry on a one-person protest;
• fail to comply with a condition imposed by the police; and
• fail to comply with the condition, at the time they know or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

The offence came into force from 28 June 2022.

From 2 July 2023, the power to impose conditions was extended to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence police, in relation to specified places.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No: It is a defence to show that the failure arose from circumstances beyond the person’s control.

ECHR proportionality assessment: Yes/No

No – however, a conviction depends on the prosecution proving that the police officer had reasonably believed the grounds on which the condition was imposed: see AG's Ref No. 1 of 2022 [2022] EWCA Crim 1259 [47] and James v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] EWHC 3296 (Admin).

Maximum sentence

A level 4 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

These offences are committed where:

• the person organises (subsection (4)), or takes part in (subsection (5)) a public procession;
• fails to comply with a condition; and
• knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

See subsections (1) and (2A) to (2E) for the grounds on which the police may impose conditions on a procession.

The criteria for serious disruption to the life of the community was amended by the PCSC Act 2022. From 28 June 2022, it includes where the procession may result in a significant delay to the supply of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product or a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or essential services, including those listed.

The criteria were further amended by SI, effective from 15 June 2023, to introduce the “more than minor” threshold (delay / disruption), aligning it with the definition of “serious disruption” in the POA 2023. The SI also made a number of other revisions, including: amending the list of examples which may constitute serious disruption to the life of the community, by adding physical disruption that prevents, or hinders to more than a minor degree, the carrying out of day-to-day activities, such as making a journey; and providing that when considering the serious disruption that may result, the police must take into account disruption that may occur regardless of whether the procession is held, including in particular normal traffic congestion, and may also take into account the cumulative disruption resulting from other processions or assemblies in the same area. 

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No: it is a defence to prove that the failure arose from circumstances beyond the person’s control.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No – however, a conviction depends on the prosecution proving that the police officer had reasonably believed the grounds on which the condition was imposed: see AG's Ref No. 1 of 2022 [2022] EWCA Crim 1259 [47] and James v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] EWHC 3296 (Admin).

Maximum sentence

Organiser – 6 months’ imprisonment, a level 4 fine, or both

Participant – Level 4 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

These offences are committed where the person:

• organises (subsection (4)), or takes part in (subsection (5)) a public assembly;
• fails to comply with a condition; and
• knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

See:

• Subsections (1) and (2A) to (2E) – for the grounds on which the police may impose conditions on an assembly
• Section 12 above for revisions to the criteria for serious disruption to the life of the community, made by the PCSC Act 2022 (28 June 2022) and subsequently by SI (15 June 2023). These revisions were also made to section 14.

From 2 July 2023, the power to impose conditions was extended to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence police, in relation to specified places.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No: it is a defence to prove that the failure arose from circumstances beyond the person’s control.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No – although a conviction depends on the prosecution proving that the police officer had reasonably believed the grounds on which the condition was imposed: see AG's Ref No. 1 of 2022 [2022] EWCA Crim 1259 [47] and James v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] EWHC 3296 (Admin):see the Case law section for further detail.  

Maximum sentence

Organiser – 6 months’ imprisonment, a level 4 fine, or both

Participant – Level 4 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

These offences are committed where:

• the person organises (subsection (1)) or takes part in (subsection (2)), an assembly, the holding of which he knows is prohibited by an order under section 14A.

See

• Section 14A for the grounds on which the police may apply to the Secretary of State or the council for an order prohibiting for a specified period the holding of all trespassory assemblies in the relevant area. 

The offence applies to "land to which the public has no right of access or only a limited right of access". “Limited” is defined as follows: "in relation to a right of access by the public to land, means that their use of it is restricted to use for a particular purpose (as in the case of a highway or road) or is subject to other restrictions."

The offence could therefore apply to a trespassory assembly on a highway. As the public have a right to assemble on the highway to protest, a fact-sensitive assessment of proportionately would be required where the trespassory assembly took place on a highway: see DPP v Jones (Margaret) [2006] UKHL 16. However, if such an assembly occurred on a private road, or any land to which the public did not have a right to assemble (i.e., private land) to protest, then no fact-sensitive assessment would be required: see DPP v Cuciurean and the ECHR section above.

From 2 July 2023, the power to impose conditions was extended to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence police, in relation to specified places. For the conditions that need to be met see subsections (4A-4C) (BTP) and (4G-4I) (MDP).

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes, in relation to a trespassory assembly on a highway, but this is not applicable in relation to a trespassory assembly on a private road or private land: see the Case law section for further detail.

Maximum sentence

Organiser – 3 months’ imprisonment, a level 4 fine, or both.

Participant – Level 3 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person trespasses on land and it relates to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in, on that or adjoining land, which is intended by them to have the effect of:

• intimidating those persons or any of them, so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity;
• obstructing that activity; or
• disrupting that activity.

“Land” does not include a highway: evidence will be required to disprove any assertion that the road upon which the defendant protested was a highway.

There is no mens rea in respect of the trespass element of the offence: Director of Public Prosecutions v Bailey & Ors [2022] EWHC 3302 (Admin).

“Lawful activity”: There is no requirement for physical presence (as opposed to being “on” the land in the sense of having a right to possess, occupy or use the land) in the words of the offence: DPP v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2022] EWHC 3207 (Admin): see the Case law section for further detail.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No, see James v Director of Public Prosecutions[2015] EWHC 3296 (Admin) and DPP v Cuciurean [2022] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which the court said it is arguable that articles 10 & 11 ECHR are not engaged at all.

Maximum sentence

3 months’ imprisonment, a level 4 fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person attaches:

• themselves to another person, to an object or to land
• a person to another person, to an object or to land
• an object to another object or to land
• The act must cause, or be capable of causing, serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation, in a place other than a dwelling: see the section on “serious disruption” for the definition.
• The serious disruption element includes the mens rea of intent / recklessness.
• There is no definition of “attach”, so it could include protestors linking arms or legs.
• A protestor who glues themselves to the road may also commit this offence.

This offence is in force from 3 May 2023

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

6 months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

Person has an object with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under section 1(1) (offence of locking on).

Examples of the types of objects that protestors may use to lock-on are glue, bicycle locks, padlocks, handcuffs, chains, bamboo scaffolding, tripods, tubes, pipes and platforms and other rigging for tree sitting.

This offence is in force from 3 May 2023

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No – However, because of the read across to the s1(1) offence, the statutory defence will apply.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

Unlimited fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

Wilfully obstructs the free passage along the highway.

It does not matter whether free passage along the highway has already been temporarily restricted or temporarily prohibited, whether by a constable, a traffic authority or otherwise. So if the police temporarily close a road to manage a protest, it is still possible to commit the offence during this period.

Proof is required that the area upon which the protest has occurred is a highway – see Kotegaonakar v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2012] EWHC 1976 (Admin) (at [14] to [22]).

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes – lawful excuse

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes - See the Case law section for guidance on DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23

Maximum sentence

From 12 May 2022: 6 months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

Prior to 12 May 2022: Level 3 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed by:

1. the obstruction of an undertaker or person acting under their authority, in relation to various construction or maintenance of any major transport works; or
2. interference with, movement or removal of apparatus belonging to specified persons (undertakers and those authorised by them), relating to construction or maintenance of any major transport works.

There is no definition of “obstructs” or “interference”.

There is no mens rea for the offence.

Subsection (6) defines “major transport works”. The definition is in two parts:

• (6)(a) Covers transport infrastructure authorised by an Act of Parliament, for example, the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 and the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Act 2021, which provide the legislative authority for the construction of the first and second phases of the HS2 project.
• (6)(b) relates to transport works the construction of which comprises development within subsection (7), that has been granted development consent by an order made under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008 Act (the 2008 Act).

Subsection (7), explains what types of development are within subsection (6)(b):

1. Developments that are, or form part of a nationally significant infrastructure project within any of paragraphs (h) to (l) of section 14(1) of the 2008 Act, namely a highway-related development; an airport-related development; the construction or alteration of harbour facilities; the construction or alteration of a railway; or the construction or alteration of a rail freight interchange.
2. Developments that are, or form part of, a project (or proposed project) in the field of transport to which the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 35(1) of the 2008 Act, for example The new railway works between Bedford and Cambridge (East West Rail Company) – Planning Act 2008 direction.
3. Associated developments in relation to developments within paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

An undertaker is defined in subsection (8) and depends on whether the major transport works are within subsection (6)(a) or (b).

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes
(a) reasonable excuse; and
(b) that the act in question was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. 

The trade dispute defence is intended to cover trade union protests and strike action.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes 

Maximum sentence

6 months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

It is an offence to:

• do an act that interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure, and
• intend to do so or be reckless as to this consequence.

“Interferes” is defined in subsections (4) and (5): if it prevents the infrastructure from being used or operated to any extent for any of its intended purposes, which include where its use or operation is significantly delayed.

Subsection (6) lists the key national infrastructure in scope of the offence, namely: road transport infrastructure; rail infrastructure; air transport infrastructure; harbour infrastructure; downstream oil infrastructure; downstream gas infrastructure; onshore oil and gas exploration and production infrastructure; onshore electricity generation infrastructure; and newspaper printing infrastructure.

Section 8 defines these terms. For instance, “road transport infrastructure” includes: (a) “a special road”, which includes all motorways, and (b) all A and B roads. 

Prosecutors should ensure that any infrastructure that is the subject of a charge comes within the relevant definition. 

This offence is in force from 3 May 2023.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes – (a) reasonable excuse and (b) that the act in question was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The trade dispute defence is intended to cover trade union protests and strike action.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

12 months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person creates or participates in the creation of a tunnel.

The act must cause, or be capable of causing, serious disruption to 2 or more individuals or an organisation, in a place other than a dwelling: see the section on “serious disruption” for the definition.

The serious disruption element includes the mens rea of intent / recklessness.

“Tunnel” is defined at subsections (5) to (7), which excludes a tunnel in or under a dwelling.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes:

• S.3(3): reasonable excuse includes authorisation by a person with an interest in the land.
• A reasonable excuse may include, for example, legitimate roadworks.

ECHR proportionality assessment: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

3 years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person is present in a tunnel that was created for the purposes of, or in connection with, a protest.

Their presence must cause, or be capable of causing, serious disruption to 2 or more individuals or an organisation, in a place other than a dwelling: see the section on “serious disruption” for the definition.

The serious disruption element includes the mens rea of intent / recklessness.

“Tunnel” is defined at subsections (5) to (8), which excludes a tunnel in or under a dwelling.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes:

• S.4(3): reasonable excuse Includes authorisation by a person with an interest in the land.
•  
• A reasonable excuse may include, for example, legitimate roadworks.

ECHR proportionality assessment: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

3 year's imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed by having an object in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of a tunnelling offence under ss3 or 4.

Examples of the types of objects that may apply are: pick-axes, drills, jackhammers, wheel barrows, augers, and equipment to conceal tunnelling activity, shore up a tunnel, or illuminate / ventilate a tunnel.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No:

• But because of the read across to the ss3 & 4 offences, the statutory defence will apply.

ECHR proportionality assessment: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

6 month's imprisonment, a fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person does an act, or omits to do an act required by any enactment or rule of law, and the act or omission:

• creates a risk of, or causes, serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or
• obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, and
• the person intends that their act or omission will have one of the above consequences, or is reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.

“Serious harm” means:

• death, personal injury, or disease
• loss of, or damage to, property, or
• serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience, or serious loss of amenity

Care should be taken in placing reliance on case law on the common law offence of Public Nuisance. In some circumstances it may still be relevant, such as where the courts have considered what amounts to an act or omission, or how widely spread the effect of a nuisance must be for it to qualify as a public nuisance. 

The offence applies to any relevant act or omission that occurs on or after 28 June 2022.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

10 years’ imprisonment

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person:

• destroys or damages property belonging to another
• demonstrates intent or recklessness as to the destruction or damage.

See the Case law section for: further detail on ECHR proportionality assessments in criminal damage cases and the approach to take when the defence of prevention of crime is raised.  

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Only in cases of minor or temporary damage to property. Significant damage to property during protest would fall outside the protection of the ECHR. See AG’s Ref No. 1 of 2022 [2022] EWCA Crim 1259, endorsed in Reference by the AG for NI - [2022] UKSC 32 

Maximum sentence

10 years’ imprisonment

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person, at a designated football match, goes onto the playing area, or any area adjacent to the playing area to which spectators are not generally admitted.

There is no mens rea.

Prosecutors should consider alternative offences of Aggravated trespass or Locking-on, where appropriate.

A s.4 conviction will allow for the imposition of a football banning order (s.14A Football Spectators Act 1989), but offences of Aggravated trespass or Locking-on may not, unless the conduct in question includes acts of violence or damage, or threats of them.

See also Football related offences Sentencing Guidelines.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes - without lawful authority or lawful excuse

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

Level 3 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

The police may direct a person to cease, or to not start doing, a prohibited activity in the controlled areas of Parliament Square or the Palace of Westminster, such as operating amplified noise equipment, erecting a tent, or obstructing the passage of a vehicle into or out of the Parliamentary Estate. 

It is an offence to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction from a constable or authorised person to cease, or not to start doing, a prohibited activity.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

Level 5 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person:

• uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
• displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress

Offences can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house).

Mens rea:

• intends words etc to be threatening or abusive, or behaviour to be disorderly; or
• aware that the words etc. may be threatening or abusive, or behaviour may be disorderly

There is no requirement to cause a person harassment, alarm, or distress.

See the Case law section for further detail.  

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes – there are three statutory defences, which include reasonable conduct.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

Level 3 fine

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person:

• uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
• displays to another any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm, or distress.

The offence can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house)

Mens rea:

• intent to cause a person harassment, alarm, or distress

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes – There are two statutory defences, which include reasonable conduct.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

Maximum sentence

6 months’ imprisonment, a level 5 fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person:

• uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
• distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

Offences can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house).

There are two separate mens rea to be proved:

• s4(1): intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
• s6(3): intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No

Maximum sentence

6 months’ imprisonment, a level 5 fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

It is an offence to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene, or disgusting nature which outrages public decency.

The requirement for the behaviour to 'outrage' public decency was said by Lord Simon in Knuller (Publishing, Printing, and promotions) Ltd v DPP to: "go considerably beyond the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people".

If conduct falls within the scope of a statutory offence, such as exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is better practice to charge that offence unless, exceptionally, the offence merits a higher penalty than that available in relation to the statutory offence.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No

Maximum sentence

No maximum

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

It is an offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which the person knows or, ought to know, amounts to harassment of another.

Course of conduct is a fact-specific assessment. It requires behaviour on more than one occasion, but this need not be the same behaviour on each occasion. Behaviour which begins as a legitimate complaint or inquiry may turn into harassment if unreasonably prolonged or persistent.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes

There are three statutory defences, including that the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

This is a consequence of s. 1(3)(b) and (c), which both protect the right of free speech and expression: see Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd v Curtin [1997] 11 WLUK 528; and Bayer Crop Science Ltd [2009] EWHC 3289 (QB).

Maximum sentence

6 months’ imprisonment, a level 5 fine, or both.

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

It is an offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct which involves harassment of two or more persons and which the defendant knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons; by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do; or to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

See above for course of conduct.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

Yes – there are three statutory defences, including that the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

Yes

This is a consequence of s. 1(3)(b) and (c), which both protect the right of free speech and expression: see Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd v Curtin [1997] 11 WLUK 528; and Bayer Crop Science Ltd [2009] EWHC 3289 (QB).

Maximum sentence

6 months’ imprisonment, a level 5 fine, or both.

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person (A) does a relevant act (criminal offence / tortious act causing B to suffer loss or damage), or threatens that they or someone else will do a relevant act with the intention of harming an animal research organisation, in circumstances in which that act, or threat, is intended or likely to cause a second person (B) to take any of the following steps:

• not to perform any contractual obligation owed by B to a third person (C)
• to terminate any contract B has with C
• not to enter into a contract with C

DPP consent required.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No reasonable excuse defence.

Defence of act done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No

Maximum sentence

5 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

This is committed where a person (A) with the intention of causing a second person (B) to abstain from doing something which B is entitled to do (or to do something which B is entitled to abstain from doing), threatens B that A or somebody else will do a relevant act (criminal offence / tortious act causing B to suffer loss or damage), and does so wholly or mainly because B is a person falling within subsection (2).

Subsection (2) contains a list of persons connected with an animal research organisation, such as an employee, officer, customer, or supplier.

DPP consent required.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No reasonable excuse defence

Defence of act done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No

Maximum sentence

5 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both

Subject

Consideration

Elements and evidence

The following offences may be applicable to protests: Aviation Security Act 1982

These offences could be committed on foot or with a vehicle.

It must be proved that notices stating that the area concerned was a security restricted area were posted, to be readily seen and read by persons entering the area.

With reference to:

• s21D - Unauthorised presence on board aircraft
• s21E - Offences relating to authorised persons

These are: s(1)(a) obstruction of an authorised person; and 2(1)(b) falsely pretending to be an authorised person.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

s21C - Yes

s21D - Yes

s21E - No

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

s21C - Yes

s21D - Yes

s21E – No

Maximum sentence

s21C - Level 5 fine

s21D - Level 5 fine

s21E(1)(a) – 2 years’ imprisonment

s21E(1)(b) – Level 5 fine

Subject

Consideration 

Elements and evidence

Section 1 contains offences relating to endangering the safety of persons or the safe operation of an aerodrome.

AG consent required to prosecute.

R v Thacker [2021] EWCA Crim 97: the offence of Intentional disruption of service at an aerodrome under s1(2)(b) would only apply to those cases where the use of the “device, substance or weapon” was in itself intrinsically dangerous (here, scaffolding poles, “lock-ons” and builders’ foam did not come within the statutory wording). The prosecution also failed to establish a causal link between the use of the device and the disruption; and the defendants’ presence at the airport and the disruption to the services of the airport. Creation of a low risk to safety is not sufficient; here the defendants’ conduct did not endanger the safe operation of the airport.

Since Thacker, a number of new offences have been enacted, which, depending on the type and level of disruption or interference involved, may be appropriate to charge in a Thacker type scenario: offences of Locking-on and Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure under the POA 2023; and the offence of Causing public nuisance under the PCSCA 2022.

Reasonable or lawful excuse or other statutory defence: Yes/No

No

ECHR proportionality assessment required: Yes/No

No

Maximum sentence

Life imprisonment