Four climate activists were found guilty and fined this morning over a protest at Barclays in Brighton last year.
The protestors, Susan Williams, 68, John Kennedy, 44, Nicola Harries, 68, and Ian Macintyre, 63, chained themselves to the railings of the Barclays branch in North Street, Brighton, on 14 November last year.
At Brighton Magistrates court, they were found guilty of obstructing or disrupting a person engaged in a lawful activity, because customers were obstructed from the front entrance of the bank.
District Judge Tessa Szagun told the court that although the defendants accepted they chained themselves to the rail and displayed a sign saying there was “business as usual”, they clearly had the intention to cause disruption.
She said that if the defendants had only hoped to present “a dramatic piece of theatre” they would have continued their demonstration on the street once being asked to move by police.
Judge Szagun called their protest a “conscious and deliberate decision as being the most effective way of carrying out the protest and and drawing attention to the cause.
She said: “Whilst the protestors did not make further efforts to block those who insisted on doing so, it is clear that they did not intend to provide them with clear passage and easy passage through this entrance.
“Their intention was by their action to dissuade them from entering.
“I found the intention of the protestors ton be deliberate and planned as part of a day of action of Extinction Rebellion – as such their culpability is within the highest level.
“I find each defendant guilty for this offence.”
The defence counsel, Jenna Dolan, argued for a conditional discharge, and said all the defendants were of good character.
Earlier in the trial, body-worn video camera footage from Sergeant Mark Redbourne, who had been at the two-hour protest, showed a sign featuring the Barclays’ logo in red, signifying “blood on the hands of Barclay’s Bank”.
There are no specific guidelines for sentencing this type of offence, and each defendant was fined according to their income, and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge as well as the court costs of the trial.
Williams, of Prestonville Road received a fine of £276, Kennedy, of Hanover Terrace received a fine of £460, Harries, of Preston Park Avenue received a fine of £440 and Macintyre, of Belgrave Street received a fine of £200.
Court costs of £2000 were to be split equally between the four.
Barclays is one of the worst banks in Europe for funding fossil fuels. They are literally profiting from destroying everything that supports life on Earth. Barclays are the real criminals, not these protesters.
Much love to everyone involved in this action. Thank you for being willing to take a stand against corporate greed and ecocide.
Pleased to see them found guilty. Perhaps if these JSO activists could help construct a pragmatic, economic, migration plan to get to #NetZero rather than just dressing up, making banners, blocking roads, and sticking themselves to objects.
What are they guilty of? Making it slightly inconvenient for one customer to enter through the front door?
They havent got huge backing and money to
being the point home so they take symbolic action and slightly inconvenience someone.
When are we going to wake up? Barclays is one of the worst investors in fossil fuels. They deserve to be exposed.
Literally tells you in the article, Jill. Don’t be obtuse.
Thank you to these protesters for their peaceful and conscientious action against a Bank who is investing billions of dollars in robbing it’s customers and the planet of a livable future. stopping this investment in fossil fuels IS very much part of a plan for next zero.
They should have just stood outside protesting and not being a nuisance to other people. There was no need to chain themselves to railings, which is such a daft and tiresome gesture, or to disobey the request by the police to move on. All they have done, apart from getting a fine, is to alienate those of us in the public who would normally sympathise with their cause. A bit of careful thought beforehand, instead of their behaving like spoilt brats, would have been more helpful.
You don’t sound like a natural sympathiser, so I don’t think they’ve lost much.
Suggest to all the naysayers here to look up the suffragette movement and their ultimately successful tactics: https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/womens-history/suffrage/creativity-of-protest/
Don’t tend to agree on much, me and Hen here. But on this I think we do. Direct action like this with a small group is of no relevance. Compared to the suffragettes, it’s a drop in an ocean, and quickly forgotten.
Apart from a fine they all now have criminal records which if they were much younger could affect their future job prospects and the ability to enter and remain working in some professions. In some a criminal conviction for any issue can lead to disciplinary sanctions and ability to practise a profession.
But I agree there were ways for them to avoid getting arrested and taken to court etc.
Chris you are a scaremonger and ill informed I’m afraid. The King has just said we must all act with intention and speed on the climate crisis and this is what the protestors are alerting us to, governments are simply not doing this within the necessary timescales as advised by science. Employers are acutely aware of the climate existential crisis and look sympathetically on arrests as mine did.
I’m not ill informed.
Just because your employer didn’t seem to mind that you were arrested they might have had a very different view if you were convicted.
And as I said some professions will disbar you for any sort of criminal conviction no matter how worthy the issue or minor the crime.
The King did not say break the law though did he?
Asserting that your employer doesn’t mind is prone to being a logical fallacy, primarily anecdotal. Similarly, relying on the words of a king is an appeal to authority. What holds true, though, is that numerous companies strongly object to any actions that could tarnish their brand, especially if associated with their employees engaging in such misconduct. It’s reasonable to suggest that safeguarding against brand defamation is likely incorporated into the employment policies of most companies.