Transcript of oral proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) brought by the ’Stansted 15’ (Thacker et al), November 2020

Uploaded: 2022-05-18
Languages: English
Collected from: 2020-11-24
Access category: Open
To: 2020-11-26


Transcript of the appeal hearing brought by fifteen anti-deportation activists against their conviction in 2018 of the offence of the ‘intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome’ so as to ‘endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons’, under section 1(2)(b) of AMSA 1990 .

Subject keywords: terrorism, activism, necessity, deportation
Data types: Spoken - transcript
Funders: N/A
Associated AIFL centres: None
License: Other


The appellants present five grounds of appeal against their conviction at first instance: (i) the trial judge misinterpreted the offence, and did not place it in its rightful context as a terrorism-related offence; (ii) the trial judge should have ordered disclosure of the reasons for the Attorney General’s consent to the prosecution; (iii) the defences of necessity/ duress of circumstances and the prevention of crime should not have been withdrawn from the jury by the trial judge; (iv) the trial judge’s summing up lacked balance; (v) the trial judge should have directed the jury not to draw adverse inferences from the ‘no comment’ interviews given upon arrest by the appellants. The appellants were ultimately successful on the first ground of appeal only. There are significant consequences for the scope of arguing necessity/ duress of circumstances defences in protest cases. Publication: Steven Cammiss, Graeme Hayes and Brian Doherty. 2021. Necessity, Non-Violent Direct Activism, and the Stansted 15: Reasserting ‘Hoffmann’s Bargain’. Modern Law Review,

Data Donors


Here are the files submitted for this Item.