Four environmental protesters who scaled Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire and allegedly damaged the roof walked free after a judge threw out the charges citing “weak” and “tenuous” evidence.
Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, Alexandra Wilson, 32, Mathieu Soete, 38, and Michael Grant, 64, were accused of damaging 15 roof slates during the five-hour demonstration against new North Sea oil projects at the former prime minister’s grade II listed home in Kirby Sigston, North Yorkshire, last August.
During the protest, the activists, who were dressed in red overalls and safety helmets, climbed on to the roof using ladders and ropes shortly before 8am and draped 200m of black fabric over the house before displaying a large placard that read “No New Oil”.
Sunak, 44, his wife Akshata Murty, 44, and their two daughters were on holiday at the time.
The prosecution told the York magistrates’ court that the family were left with a bill of £2,937.86 to fix nine Westmorland and six Welsh Blue slates.
Advertisement
After the prosecution closed its case for causing criminal damage, Owen Greenhall, the activists’ lawyer, argued that there was no case to answer because it could not be proved the damage to the roof was caused during the protest.
In a decision handed down on Friday, Judge Adrian Lower said the evidence against the defendants was “so tenuous” that no court would convict them. He said he would deliver a full ruling on November 11.
The court was told that Malcolm Richardson, a foreman and experienced roofer with a contract to carry out work at Sunak’s home, was called to inspect the roof after a police officer investigating the protest said he believed there had been some damage.
Richardson said he was asked to inspect only the area where he was told the protesters had been and identified 15 tiles that would need to be repaired.
In a statement to police, he claimed he could tell the damage was recent because of “weathering and colouration”. Pictures taken by the roofer were used by prosecutors, who said it was evident “that the location of the damage corresponds to the locations where the defendants went”.
Advertisement
While Richardson was giving evidence, it was revealed that three of the 15 pictures used by the prosecution were actually of the same tile taken from different angles and some had been taken after he had moved the tiles to carry out the repairs in November.
In his application to the court, Greenhall said there appeared to be cracks in tiles in parts of the roof where the protesters had not gone. He added that Richardson’s method to date the cracks was not reliable and that he was only asked to look in one area when “what should have been done is an examination of the entire roof”.
“It’s clear this is a roof where there is pre-existing damage in areas where the protesters did not go. This is not a pristine roof by any means,” he said. “The simple fact that there are cracks in the tiles on the southern elevation by itself cannot be enough to get over the criminal standard that the defendants are responsible for it.”
He said that Richardson’s business relationship with the couple and responsibility for repairs at their house meant he “could not be described as being independent”.
During the trial, Scott Hall, the family’s personal chief of staff, said the property was “well-maintained” and staff “would have been aware of any damage to the roof”.
Advertisement
In cross-examination, Hall accepted there appeared to be some cracks in areas of the roof away from the protest that he had not been aware of and that some of the window frames appeared to have peeling paint.
Staff at the property were “shocked” to find Greenpeace activists in the grounds on the morning of August 3.
Speaking outside the court, Grant said: “Justice and common sense prevailed in court today, but that hasn’t been the case for many activists recently.
“We have become a country that regularly sends peaceful protesters to jail, with some facing years behind bars for trying to preserve a habitable planet for us all. This has to stop.
“Peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy — it gave us votes for women, the right to a weekend and bans on commercial whaling and fracking.”
Advertisement
He said the activists had targeted Sunak’s home because it was a “personal” decision for him to issue new fossil fuel licences, and that they had made sure the family were not at home before the protest.
