Court rules on aggravated trespass in climate protest case

High Court Ruling on Aggravated Trespass in Climate Protest

The High Court delivered a significant judgment on 11 March 2025, addressing two appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) concerning aggravated trespass charges linked to climate protests at Müller Wiseman Dairies premises in North Petherton. The cases, heard together due to their shared legal issues, involved protests organised by Animal Rebellion, now known as Animal Rising, aimed at highlighting the climate impact of animal agriculture.

The first appeal challenged a decision by District Judge Brereton, who had ruled there was no case to answer regarding charges of aggravated trespass against several respondents involved in a protest on 5 September 2022. The second appeal contested the acquittal of different respondents involved in a similar protest on 4 September 2022. Both protests were part of a broader movement advocating for a plant-based food system.

In both trials, the prosecution argued that the respondents had trespassed on land owned by Müller without permission, thereby obstructing lawful activities. The respondents, however, challenged the prosecution's evidence on trespass, focusing on the lack of documentation proving land ownership and boundaries, as well as the absence of evidence on public rights of way.

In Trial 1, the judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence of trespass, citing the lack of documentation and the need for more concrete evidence of land ownership and permission. Similarly, in Trial 2, the judge found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove trespass beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the respondents' acquittal.

The High Court, however, found that the judge in both trials had erred in law by focusing on ownership rather than possession of the land. The court clarified that for aggravated trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the prosecution needed to prove possession and lack of permission, not ownership. The High Court determined that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including testimony from a senior Müller employee, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of trespass.

The court also addressed the issue of inferential evidence, noting that circumstantial evidence could indeed prove trespass. The High Court emphasised that the presence of fences, security measures, and the nature of the premises strongly indicated that the respondents had no permission to enter.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the DPP's appeal in both cases. For Trial 1, the court ordered a retrial before a different tribunal. In Trial 2, the court quashed the acquittals and substituted verdicts of guilty, remitting the case for sentencing by a different tribunal.

The ruling underscores the importance of understanding the legal nuances of trespass and the evidential requirements for proving aggravated trespass in protest-related cases.

Learn More

For more information on legal compliance and business practices in protest cases, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.