A vicar who took part in a peaceful Extinction Rebellion demonstration outside a Ministry of Defence site has had her conviction quashed.
Rev Sue Parfitt, 80, sat in a camping chair outside an entrance to the complex at Abbey Wood, in Filton, near Bristol in December 2020.
Bristol Crown Court heard Rev Parfitt was among a group of change protesters who blockaded three entrances on the morning of December 11 2020.
MoD security allowed protests to continue at two entrances, but demonstrators at the main entrance were stopping vehicles accessing the site – but not pedestrians or cyclists.
The protest took place after the Government announced a large funding boost for the Ministry of Defence – twice what it was allocating for climate change.
It came on the eve of the fifth anniversary of Paris Climate Accord, at which the UK Government agreed to limit global warming to 1.5C.
The court heard the action was targeted at the Ministry of Defence as it is one of the Government’s major contributors to carbon emissions, but has been excluded from carbon emission targets.
On that day, during the tier 3 restrictions, only between 150 and 200 people were required on the site, plus contractors, builders and deliveries.
Rev Parfitt, who sat in a chair in the middle of the road, was arrested after a four-and-a-half hour protest.
She was charged and later convicted after trial at Bristol Magistrates’ Court of obstructing the highway and fined £250 and ordered to pay £500 costs.
The pensioner appealed against the conviction and told the court she was a member of Christian Climate Action, a group linked to Extinction Rebellion.
“Justice is the central theme of Christianity and justice is at the heart of the issues of climate change and the impending climate catastrophe,” she said.
“I have to say children born now have no future unless we can turn this crisis round.”
Giving evidence, she accepted the protest caused disruption to the public.
“I apologise to them of course. They are my fellow citizens, and I don’t want to disrupt their day,” she said.
“However, somehow, we need to try and get across to everybody, all of us, the gravity of the situation we are facing.
“If you remember back to the beginning of Covid-19 there were scenes in supermarkets of people fighting over toilet rolls.
“That is going to be nothing when you are fighting over food, water and fuel and all the basic qualities of life.
“That is what is coming down the line, not long now, and certainly to our children and grandchildren.”
Lawyers for the retired family therapist, from Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, argued she had a lawful excuse to protest following a Supreme Court ruling that said blocking a road to an arms fair was legal.
Allowing the appeal and quashing Rev Parfitt’s fine, Recorder Robin Sellers said: “It is clear it is for the crown to satisfy the court to the criminal standard that the restrictions to the rights caused by arrest, detention, prosecution and conviction are necessary and proportionate in a democratic society to a legitimate aim on the facts of the case.
“In considering what proportionality of the measures taken in Ziegler that there is an importance for public authorities, including therefore this court, to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings and therefore the same degree of tolerance to disruption of ordinary life, including disruption to traffic caused by the exercise of Article 10 and 11 rights.
We find that Rev Parfitt was exercising her Article 10 right of freedom of expression and this must be balanced against the level of disruption that is established on the evidence
“The appellant submits the protest was reasonable in all the circumstances and therefore avails a lawful excuse.
“There was no disorder or instances of aggression on the evidence, that it was a protest of relatively short duration ending before 11am and causing only seven vehicles to be inconvenienced in that period.
“The evidence that we find important was that there was a set of vehicles known to have been prevented from access and that there was a contingency for emergency vehicles to pass and disabled badged vehicles.
“In this case, limited to its own facts, we find that Rev Parfitt was exercising her Article 10 right of freedom of expression and this must be balanced against the level of disruption that is established on the evidence.
“We find that the prosecution has not satisfied us so that we are sure this was an unreasonable use of a highway therefore this appeal is allowed.”
