UK Supreme Court Cases - Protesters

Richardson vs. DPP – 2014 – Protesters trespassed illegally

By Jessica Tsao

Two men (Richardson and Wilkinson) entered a shop in Covent Garden with the intention of stopping shop trading. They did this by locking their arms inside of a concrete tube, which they placed on the floor. They believed that trading methods of the shop (Ahava) was unlawful, since the brand claims that its products are made in Israel when in fact, the shop is run by the subsidiary of an Israeli company operating in the West Bank (which is not considered to be part of Israel). Hence, Richardson and Wilkinson accused Ahava of breaching consumer protection legislation, and the Hague Convention on the Law and Customs of War on Land (prohibiting exploitation of resources in the area) and cheating the revenue.

The Magistrates’ court had announced that the shop could not be charged for their actions of unlawful trading since the company had not been prosecuted and its defense arguments are not tested. However, the two men were arrested for aggravated trespass and conducting unlawful activity under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Finally, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal. Overall, the manufacturing company’s actions were not seen as an offence and on top of that, the district judge found that a consumer who was willing to buy Israeli products would care less if they were to be produced in the Occupied Territory.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is likely to limit the future availability of the defense that the activity interrupted was unlawful. This would have a substantial impact on the course of future prosecutions of activists. Furthermore, judges would have to consider the ECHR when undergoing the dealings of this case.

A good example for students when contemplating the impact of protesters on companies; they are less able to claim as a defense that the company is operating illegally.