Protests - Potential offences during protests, demonstrations, or campaigns - Annex A
This is an annex to Prosecution Guidance on Offences during Protests, Demonstrations or Campaigns.
Also available to download as a PDF document.
- Common protest offences and POA 2023 offences
- Breach of conditions and prohibitions on public processions, assemblies, and one-person protests
- Aggravated trespass
- Offences of Locking-on and being equipped to lock-on
- Wilful obstruction of the highway
- Obstruction of major transport works
- Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure
- Offences relating to tunnelling
- Causing public nuisance
- Criminal damage
- Other offences committed during protests
Common protest offences and POA 2023 offences
Breach of conditions and prohibitions on public processions, assemblies, and one-person protests
These offences relate to breaches of conditions or prohibitions imposed by the police and may be committed by an organiser or a participant. In addition to the offences listed below, there are offences under s13 relating to breach of an order prohibiting a public procession and there are offences of inciting another to commit all the participant breach offences.
Section 14ZA POA 1986: Breach of a condition on one-person protest – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | A person commits an offence if they:
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 |
Sub-section 12(4)&(5) POA 1986: Failure to comply with a condition imposed on a public procession – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | These offences are committed where:
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 |
Sub-section 14(4)&(5) POA 1986: Failure to comply with a condition imposed on a public assembly – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | These offences are committed where the person:
See:
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 |
Sub-section 14B(1)&(2) POA 1986: Offences relating to trespassory assembly – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | These offences are committed where:
See
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 |
Aggravated trespass
Trespass is not of itself a criminal offence. However, there are some offences in which trespass is an essential element. Aggravated trespass is one such example and is commonly committed during protest activity.
Another offence that may be committed during protests is trespassory assembly, s14B Public Order Act 1986 – see below.
There are also offences in other legislation, such as: section 128 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - Trespassing on a protected site (nuclear and “designated” sites, which are land belonging to the king or the heir to the throne and designated by the SoS in the interests of national security); and section 9 Criminal Law Act 1977 – Trespass on premises of a foreign mission.
Prosecutors should refer to CPS guidance on Trespass and Nuisance on Land for more detail on offences relating to trespass.
Section 68 CJPOA 1994 Aggravated trespass – Summary only
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:
“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 |
Offences of Locking-on and being equipped to lock-on
These summary-only offences criminalise the protest tactic of individuals attaching themselves to others, objects, or land.
Section 1 POA 2023 Locking-on – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | This is committed where a person attaches:
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 |
Section 2 POA 2023 Being equipped to lock-on – Summary only
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 |
Wilful obstruction of the highway
See Case law section below for further detail.
Section 137 HA 1980 – Summary only
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 |
Obstruction of major transport works
This criminalises behaviour that obstructs or interferes with the construction or maintenance of major transport projects, such as HS2, and applies to airport, harbour, road and rail projects.
Section 6 POA 2023 - Obstruction of major transport works - Summary only
This offence is in force from 2 July 2023.
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | This is committed by:
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:
Subsection (7), explains what types of development are within subsection (6)(b):
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 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. |
Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure
This offence covers behaviour that prevents or significantly delays the operation of key national infrastructure, including airports, railways, printing presses and downstream oil and gas infrastructure.
Section 7 POA 2023 Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure – Either way
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence
| It is an offence to:
“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. |
Offences relating to tunnelling
These 3 offences criminalise the act of tunnelling, which is sometimes used by protestors on construction projects, such as HS2.
Section 3 POA 2023: Causing serious disruption by tunnelling – Either way
This offence is in force from 2 July 2023.
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:
|
ECHR proportionality assessment: Yes/No | Yes |
Maximum sentence | 3 years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both |
Section 4 POA 2023: Causing serious disruption by being present in a tunnel – Either way
This offence is in force from 2 July 2023.
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:
|
ECHR proportionality assessment: Yes/No | Yes |
Maximum sentence | 3 year's imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both |
Section 5 POA 2023: Being equipped for tunnelling – Summary only
This offence is in force from 2 July 2023.
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. Although there is no requirement to prove that a s3 or s4 offence has occurred, proof of intention will be required in relation to all of the elements of one of these offences, including “serious disruption” and absence of reasonable excuse.
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:
|
ECHR proportionality assessment: Yes/No | Yes |
Maximum sentence | 6 month's imprisonment, a fine, or both |
Causing public nuisance
Section 78 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA) abolished the common law offence of public nuisance and created this statutory offence, in force from 28 June 2022. The principle in R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 459 that applied to common law public nuisance (that it is preferable to use statutory offences as opposed to a common law offence covering the same behaviour, unless there is good reason not to do so) does not restrict the use of the statutory offence of public nuisance.
Section 78 PCSCA 2022 Causing public nuisance – Either way
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:
“Serious harm” means:
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 |
Criminal damage
There are also offences of arson, aggravated criminal damage, aggravated arson, and threats to destroy or damage property.
Section 1 CDA 1971 Destroying or damaging property – Either way
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | This is committed where a person:
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 |
Other offences committed during protests
Protests at football matches
Protestors may disrupt matches by entering the field of play and may also attach themselves to goalposts. There is a bespoke offence of Going onto the playing area to cover this activity. However, CPS guidance on Football Related Offences and Football Banning Orders indicates that where there is sufficient evidence, it would normally be preferable to charge one of the offences under more general legislation, as the football-specific offences may limit the court’s sentencing powers.
Section 4 Football (Offences) Act – Going onto the playing area – Summary only
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. |
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 |
Palace of Westminster and Parliament Square
Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is designed to prevent disruptive activities in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster, and to ensure vehicular access to Parliament (see Home Office Guidance).
Section 143(8) Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 – Summary only
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 |
Offences under the Public Order Act 1986
CPS guidance on Public Order Offences provides further detailed guidance on these and other offences, such as affray and violent disorder.
Section 5 POA 1986 Harassment, alarm, or distress – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | This is committed where a person:
Offences can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house). Mens rea:
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 |
Section 4A POA 1986 Intentional harassment, alarm or distress – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | This is committed where a person:
The offence can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house) Mens rea:
|
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 |
Section 4 POA 1986 Fear or provocation of violence – Summary only
Subject | Consideration |
Elements and evidence | This is committed where a person:
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:
|
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 |
Outraging public decency
Common law offence – Either way
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 |
Harassment and stalking offences
Protestors may target individuals via harassment or stalking. For example: employees of organisations that are the subject of protests, such as fossil fuel, arms manufacturing or animal testing companies; or persons accessing or providing services at an abortion clinic. In addition to the 2 offences of harassment detailed below, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 contains further offences of Stalking, Fear of violence, and Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. CPS Guidance on Stalking and Harassment includes detail on these offences and a list of examples of how the offences may be committed.
Sub-section 1(1)&2 PHA 1997 Harassment– Summary only
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. |
Sub-section 1(1A)&2 PHA 1997 Harassment - Summary only
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. |
Offences relating to Animal research
In addition to these bespoke offences, offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may be appropriate, where protestors target individuals connected to animal research via harassment or stalking: see above.
Section 145 SOCPA 2005 Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation – Either way
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:
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 |
Section 146 SOCPA 2005 Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation – Either way
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 |
Offences relating to airports
There are a number of bespoke statutory offences in the legislation covered below. Consideration may also be given to other offences, such as 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.
Section 21C-21D Aviation Security Act 1982 Offences relating to security at aerodromes
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: 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 |
Section 1 Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 Endangering safety at aerodromes – Indictable only
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 |