Larch Maxey & Anor v R

Larch Maxey & Anor v R

The jury were properly directed to consider whether the appellants agreed and intended to cause the closure of Heathrow Airport, and whether such closure would necessarily amount to a public nuisance. The authorities' actions in closing the airport in response to the protest did not break the chain of causation. The late change in the prosecution's case did not render the trial unfair as the appellants' fundamental case was unaffected and the judge managed the change appropriately.

Parties
First Appellant: Larch Maxey; Second Appellant: Julian Roger Hallam; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Public Nuisance, Protest Law, Causation, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Conspiracy Public Nuisance Protest Law Causation Fair Trial

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larch Maxey

First Appellant

Julian Roger Hallam

Second Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence established an agreement to cause a public nuisance
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misinterpreted section 1(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether the intervention of a third party (airport authorities) broke the chain of causation

Ratio Decidendi

The jury were properly directed to consider whether the appellants agreed and intended to cause the closure of Heathrow Airport, and whether such closure would necessarily amount to a public nuisance. The authorities' actions in closing the airport in response to the protest did not break the chain of causation. The late change in the prosecution's case did not render the trial unfair as the appellants' fundamental case was unaffected and the judge managed the change appropriately.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.