Thacker & Ors, R. v

Thacker & Ors, R. v

The appellants' conduct did not fall within section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 because the items used were not inherently dangerous, the disruption was not caused by such items, and the statutory requirements were not met. The convictions were unsafe and must be quashed.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Edward Thacker; Appellant: Benjamin Smoke; Appellant: Melanie Strickland; Appellant: Lyndsey Burtonshaw; Appellant: Laura Clayson; Appellant: May MacKeith; Appellant: Melanie Evans; Appellant: Alistair Tamlit; Appellant: Nicholas Sigsworth; Appellant: Emma Hughes; Appellant: Ruth Potts; Appellant: Jyotsna Ram; Appellant: Joseph McGahan; Appellant: Nathan Clack; Appellant: Helen Brewer; Intervener: Liberty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, Protest and Direct Action, Necessity Defence, Adverse Inference From Silence, Universal Jurisdiction, Human Rights (echr Articles 10 and 11)
Criminal Law Public Order Aviation Law Interpretation of Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 Protest and Direct Action Necessity Defence Adverse Inference From Silence Universal Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Edward Thacker

Appellant

Benjamin Smoke

Appellant

Melanie Strickland

Appellant

Lyndsey Burtonshaw

Appellant

Laura Clayson

Appellant

May MacKeith

Appellant

Melanie Evans

Appellant

Alistair Tamlit

Appellant

Nicholas Sigsworth

Appellant

Emma Hughes

Appellant

Ruth Potts

Appellant

Jyotsna Ram

Appellant

Joseph McGahan

Appellant

Nathan Clack

Appellant

Helen Brewer

Appellant

Liberty

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' conduct fell within section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'device, substance or weapon' under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing defences of necessity, duress, and prevention of crime from the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' conduct did not fall within section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 because the items used were not inherently dangerous, the disruption was not caused by such items, and the statutory requirements were not met. The convictions were unsafe and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • All convictions under section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 are quashed.