Incorporating Customary International Law into Domestic Law: Criminal Law Act 1967, S. 3; Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1994, S. 68(2)
| Date | 01 February 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.1.11 |
| Published date | 01 February 2007 |
| Author | Christopher Newman |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Incorporating Customary International Law into Domestic
Law: Criminal Law Act 1967, s. 3; Criminal Justice Public
Order Act 1994, s. 68(2)
R v Jones and Others [2006] UKHL 16, [2006] 2 All ER 741
In February and March of 2003, 20 protestors embarked upon a series of
demonstrations at military bases in opposition to the military action in
Iraq conducted by the US and the UK Governments. Each of the pro-
testors were charged and convicted at first instance of either aggravated
trespass in contravention of s. 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994 or criminal damage, contrary to s. 1 of the Criminal
Damage Act 1971.
In relation to s. 68(1) of the 1994 Act, the offence of aggravated
trespass is committed if a person trespasses on land and, in relation to
any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage
in on that or adjoining land, does there, anything intended to have the
effect of intimidating those persons so as to deter them from engaging in
that activity, of obstructing that activity, or of disrupting that activity.
Section 68(2) of the 1994 Act provides that activity will be lawful if the
occupier may engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without
committing an offence or trespassing on the land.
It was contended by those convicted of aggravated trespass that the
activity of the military which was occuring on the bases was contrary to
customary international law, specifically that the UK and US Govern-
ments were committing the crime of aggression against Iraq. Accord-
ingly, it was maintained that the crime of aggression is capable of being
an offence within the terms of s. 68(2) of the 1994 Act, and that
therefore, the activities on the military bases were not lawful and as such
the offence under s. 68(1) of the 1994 could not be made out.
Those convicted of criminal damage contrary to s. 1 of the 1971 Act
relied at trial on the provisions of s. 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967
which provides, inter alia, that a person may use such force as is
reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime. Section 1(1)
of the 1971 Act provides that a person who without lawful excuse
destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to
destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether
any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an
offence.
The protestors contended that they honestly believed that the force
they used in causing the damage was reasonable to prevent a crime,
namely the continued maintenance of the war in Iraq. The protestors
claimed that due to the assimilation of the crime of aggression into
domestic law, their actions fell within the ambit of s. 3 of the 1967 Act.
11
To continue reading
Request your trial