Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Stratford Magistrates Court & Ors

The statutory prevention-of-crime defence requires an imminent or immediate crime and a clear nexus between the defendant’s conduct and preventing it. Generalised concerns about unlawful activity at a protest venue cannot justify obstructing unrelated vehicles or access routes. The reasonableness of force is assessed objectively, in the context of a democratic society and the rule of law. Sincerity of belief is relevant to the subjective question but not to objective reasonableness. A court may withdraw the defence where, even on the most favourable evidence, it is unavailable. Direct force may qualify even when not applied against a person, but conduct short of force must still have a sufficient nexus with the criminality.

Eight protesters obstructed vehicles and access to the DSEI exhibition and were charged with highway obstruction under the Highways Act 1980. They relied on the prevention-of-crime defence in section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, alleging intended prevention of unlawful arms trading and international crimes. After a five-day trial, the District Judge acquitted them and refused the prosecution’s application to state a case, treating the application as frivolous. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought judicial review, contending that the defence was unavailable because no imminent or immediate crime, or sufficient nexus, had been shown. The central issues were whether the defence was available, whether the refusal to state a case was lawful, and what remedy should follow.

1. Defence unavailable. The District Judge materially erred in law by permitting reliance on section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. The defence is linked to necessity and requires an apprehension of an imminent or immediate crime, together with a clear nexus between the conduct and prevention of that crime. Generalised or unspecified criminal activity at a large exhibition did not satisfy those requirements.
2. The principles in R v Jones (Margaret) and others [2007] 1 AC 136 were not confined to the decision’s strictly necessary reasoning. They provided a clear exposition of the limits of self-help. Citizens are ordinarily expected to use the police, courts and democratic processes rather than enforce the law themselves. Honest protest beliefs cannot convert civil disobedience into justified criminal conduct where no immediate need to act exists.
3. The objective question whether force was reasonable had to be assessed in the context of a democratic society and the rule of law. The Interested Parties’ sincerity was irrelevant to that question and introduced an impermissible subjective element. There was no evidential basis for finding that an imminent crime was being prevented, and nothing linked the highway obstruction to the lawful vehicles being obstructed.
4. At the stage of determining the ambit of the defence, the court should consider the most favourable view of the evidence. If no proper evidential basis exists for the defence, it should be withdrawn. Expert evidence about historic breaches, general human-rights concerns or the legality of activities was irrelevant and inadmissible unless it bore directly on the alleged crime and its prevention.
5. For section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, “frivolous” means futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic. The application raised serious questions of law and should have been stated. Judicial review was nevertheless an appropriate route because the District Judge had given written findings and the material issues were sufficiently clear.
6. Although quashing and remittal for retrial would ordinarily follow, the cumulative delay, procedural history, difficulties of retrial, unresolved factual issues and limited penalty meant that the overall interests of justice did not require continuation of the prosecution. The court declared that the District Judge had made material errors of law but declined to order a retrial.

• Stratford Magistrates’ Court: the Interested Parties were acquitted after trial on 15 April 2016. The District Judge refused to state a case under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the claim for judicial review succeeded to the extent that material errors of law were declared. The acquittals were not remitted for retrial.