The Crown Prosecution Service has launched a high court challenge to the decision by a judge last year to let the Euston tunnellers walk free after their trial.
The highly unusual move, which seeks a judicial review of the decision to dismiss charges against six HS2 protesters who spent a month in tunnel in front of Euston train station, has led to claims by environmental activists that the CPS is interfering with the right to protest non-violently about the climate emergency.
Charges of aggravated trespass were dismissed last October by district judge Susan Williams. Now the CPS has started judicial review proceedings against the decision. The case was heard at Highbury Corner magistrates court in north London.
A spokesperson for HS2 Rebellion expressed alarm at the CPS’s decision. They said: “In the wake of the government’s policing bill, the decision to review the Euston tunnel case is another ominous attack on our right to protest. This protest was peaceful and proportionate and raised awareness of the unjustifiable cost of HS2 to the environment and to taxpayers.”
At the time of the dismissal of charges last year an HS2 spokesperson said they were “bitterly disappointed” with the outcome of the case.
The protesters dug a 100ft tunnel network secretly over a period of months and stored up enough food and water supplies to last throughout the subterranean protest. During the tunnel occupation they spent much of their time digging and shoring up the structure they had created.
Williams dismissed the charges against the protesters on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against them. Instead, their aim was to clear the site of protesters and then begin the construction work.
She said in court: “There is no evidence of any constructor or construction taking place on the land at that time.”
The subterranean environmental protest is thought to be one of the longest in UK protest history. The court heard that the disruption to HS2’s work at the Euston site cost about £3.5m.
There were nine activists involved in the tunnel protest, ranging in age from 16 to 48. Two aged under-18 were not charged and a third activist was unwell and unable to attend the court hearing.
The environmental activists staged their protest because they believe that the HS2 project is causing environmental damage, including to 108 ancient woodlands.
HS2 disputes this and says that according to its assessments, 43 of the country’s 52,000 ancient woodlands will be affected by HS2’s route between London and Crewe, with 80% of the total area of these remaining untouched, meaning just 0.005% of ancient woodland will be lost, a fraction of losses from comparable road projects.
While the protesters celebrated “a victory for the right to protest” following last October’s court case they are now facing a new threat from the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to get their acquittal judicially reviewed.
Simon Natas of ITN Solicitors who acted for the Euston tunnel protesters at their trial, said: “My clients were engaged in peaceful, environmental protest. Our view is that they were acquitted entirely properly and that the reasoning of the district judge in the case was unimpeachable. We are surprised that the CPS is challenging that decision and I fully expect that their application will be contested.”
A CPS spokesperson said: “We have applied for permission to seek a judicial review into the decision to dismiss charges against six HS2 protesters in October. Our written application will be considered by a judge. If it is granted a full hearing will take place before the high court.”
Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti, previously director of Liberty, said: “A wise CPS would be slow to use public funds to judicially review inconvenient court decisions, not least when the policing of protest has become so politicised and judicial review put beyond the reach of ordinary citizens.
“Court decisions, like protests, can be annoying to those in authority, but the ‘one law for them’ approach is exploding public trust in criminal justice. Prosecutors are supposed to be servants of the public and our courts. Maybe they should prioritise bringing sex offenders to justice and winning back the confidence of women and girls?”
