A jury has been told their verdict on two climate activists accused of smashing the windows of a Norwich bank is about whether they breached the limits of legal protest.
Green Party city councillor Amanda Fox, 52 and fellow Extinction Rebellion protester Jennifer Parkhouse, 71, are on trial accused of causing criminal damage at Barclays' branch on St James Court, Norwich, in April 2021.
King’s Lynn Crown Court has heard both women accept that they had caused the damage but argue that they had a lawful excuse as they opposed Barclays investments in fossil fuels.
Judge David Farrell KC told the jury he will accept a majority verdict of 10-1 after they failed to reach unamimous decision after four hours on Friday. They will continue their deliberations on August 8.
READ MORE: XR activists 'upped ante' with Norwich bank hammer protest
Summing up the evidence before sending out the jury he said the issues were a “balancing act”.
“People have the right to legal protest but there are limits to protect people and property,” he added.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to protest, did not apply in the case as it excludes damage to property, he told the jury.
John Fairhead, prosecuting, said: “No one doubts the sincerity of their beliefs. They obviously have very deep convictions on the matter of climate change and I do not seek to belittle that.
“But there are limits on what you can do to change minds and what Barclays was doing with its investments was legal.”
READ MORE: Extinction Rebellion protesters arrested for smashing Barclays windows
Simon Gladwell, for Parkhouse, said she was “not a crackpot” but was “someone sincere in the beliefs and views that she holds”.
“She has been dedicated to saving lives and the planet. These are not trivial issues and there is no personal gain or reward in it for her,” he added.
“Maybe one day people like these will be seen as trailblazers like the suffragettes.”
Laura O'Brien, for Fox, said she had acted in the “honest belief that if they knew the full consequences of the company’s investments in fossil fuels Barclay’s shareholders would have consented”.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here