Another excellent column. You inadvertently raise an interesting question of etiquette in it. You refer to Baroness Carr, as I have seen other people do. Obviously that is true, but we didn't refer to Baron Burnett or Baron Thomas. I presume it's because the challenge with 'Lady' is that it also means the spouse of a knight or peer. I stress I do not mean this as a criticism in any way but, as you know, I am intrigued as to why we hold onto the ancient titles. I can't help wonder that if all the judges were just called 'judge' or 'justice', with the LCJ being 'chief justice' that we wouldn't have this problem, because she would just be the "the Chief Justice" or "Chief Justice Carr".
In terms of the substance of your column, I agree with your reasoning. Parliament cannot possibly have intended legal excuse to mean that people would permit damage if they truly understood the profound consequences of a scenario (in this case, that the owners of buildings would agree to the damage if they realised that it was calling attention to a global climate emergency). It was always an unwieldly defence and it would have been better to have had 'reasonable excuse' instead of 'lawful excuse' linked to this concept of implied and express consent. It is highly unlikely that a jury, properly directed, would consider the types of criminal damage that have occurred would have constituted a reasonable excuse. Although, of course, the right of a jury to unreasonably acquit (which is tangentially being discussed in the contempt of case cases) is also somewhat controversial! Or, not have any defence on the face of it, and simply allow people to rely on necessity.
Another excellent column. You inadvertently raise an interesting question of etiquette in it. You refer to Baroness Carr, as I have seen other people do. Obviously that is true, but we didn't refer to Baron Burnett or Baron Thomas. I presume it's because the challenge with 'Lady' is that it also means the spouse of a knight or peer. I stress I do not mean this as a criticism in any way but, as you know, I am intrigued as to why we hold onto the ancient titles. I can't help wonder that if all the judges were just called 'judge' or 'justice', with the LCJ being 'chief justice' that we wouldn't have this problem, because she would just be the "the Chief Justice" or "Chief Justice Carr".
In terms of the substance of your column, I agree with your reasoning. Parliament cannot possibly have intended legal excuse to mean that people would permit damage if they truly understood the profound consequences of a scenario (in this case, that the owners of buildings would agree to the damage if they realised that it was calling attention to a global climate emergency). It was always an unwieldly defence and it would have been better to have had 'reasonable excuse' instead of 'lawful excuse' linked to this concept of implied and express consent. It is highly unlikely that a jury, properly directed, would consider the types of criminal damage that have occurred would have constituted a reasonable excuse. Although, of course, the right of a jury to unreasonably acquit (which is tangentially being discussed in the contempt of case cases) is also somewhat controversial! Or, not have any defence on the face of it, and simply allow people to rely on necessity.