header-logo header-logo

11 November 2022 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Human rights , Public
printer mail-detail

Criminal damage: when the intuitive becomes counter-intuitive

100251
The Court of Appeal has weighed in on the debate surrounding criminal damage & right to protest: Nicholas Dobson examines the verdict
  • The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide protection to those who cause criminal damage during protests which are violent or not peaceful, nor when the damage is inflicted violently or not peacefully.
  • Prosecution and conviction for causing significant damage to property, even if inflicted in a way which is ‘peaceful’, could not be disproportionate in Convention terms.

When I were a lad, boiling water burned you, ice was freezing cold, and criminal damage was clearly a crime. This was simply intuitive: in other words, readily, naturally and universally perceived. For as the influential 16th century theologian Richard Hooker wrote: ‘The mind of man desireth evermore to know the truth according to the most infallible certainty which the nature of things can yield. The greatest assurance generally with all men is that which we have by plain aspect and intuitive beholding.’ But,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll