Factual and Procedural Background
The Interested Parties were charged with offences of aggravated trespass related to their protest against the construction of the HS2 railway at Euston Square Gardens. The charges alleged that they obstructed or disrupted "HS2 construction." At trial, District Judge Williams accepted a submission of no case to answer, reasoning that the construction contractor was not present on site and that the only lawful activity was the eviction of the protestors, which she did not consider to fall within "HS2 construction." The judge also refused to state a case for the High Court, deeming the application frivolous.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) sought judicial review of the District Judge’s decision, arguing that the decision was irrational because "HS2 construction" included site clearance and eviction, and that the judge erred procedurally by not permitting an amendment to the charge. Interested Party 6 opposed the claim, maintaining that the Crown lacked evidence of obstruction of construction works, and that the judge was correct to dismiss the charges. The other Interested Parties did not participate but aligned with Interested Party 6.
The HS2 project involves building high-speed rail lines governed partly by the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017. Protestors occupied land at Euston Square Gardens, owned by Network Rail and leased to the London Borough of Camden, which HS2 intended to use for a taxi rank. HS2 took possession of the land in January 2021, but protestors resisted eviction, necessitating a complex and resource-intensive removal operation involving enforcement officers and emergency services.
Between February and March 2021, the Interested Parties were charged with aggravated trespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, alleging obstruction or disruption of lawful activities described as "HS2 construction." The charges were amended prior to trial to unify wording. The trial commenced in October 2021, during which the Crown presented evidence, including witness testimony and video footage. The Interested Parties submitted no case to answer on the basis that no construction activity was underway, only eviction. The judge accepted this submission and dismissed the charges, reasoning that eviction was not encompassed by "HS2 construction."
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the District Judge’s decision to accept the submission of no case to answer was irrational because "HS2 construction" includes site clearance and eviction activities.
- Whether the District Judge erred procedurally by dismissing the charges instead of allowing an amendment to the charge to cure any defect.
- Whether the District Judge was wrong to refuse to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, deeming the application frivolous.
Arguments of the Parties
DPP's Arguments
- The term "HS2 construction" in the charges should be interpreted broadly to include site clearance and eviction of protestors as part of the construction process.
- The District Judge’s decision was irrational and inconsistent with the evidence and the Crown’s case presentation.
- Even if there was a defect in the charges, the judge should have allowed an amendment under section 123 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 rather than dismissing the charges.
- The application to state a case was not frivolous as it raised legitimate legal questions about the judge’s decision.
Interested Party 6's Arguments
- The Crown’s case was that the Interested Parties obstructed actual construction work, which had not commenced at the time of the alleged offences.
- The judge correctly found no evidence of construction activity and was right to dismiss the charges on that basis.
- The issue before the judge concerned sufficiency of evidence, which could not be remedied by an amendment to the charge.
- The judge was justified in refusing to state a case as the application was frivolous, although if grounds 1 and 2 succeeded, refusal to state a case would be wrong.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Richardson v DPP [2014] UKSC 8 |
Elements of the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. |
The court cited the four elements required for aggravated trespass to clarify the legal framework for the charges. |
| Tilly v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] EWHC 821 (Admin) |
Whether lawful activity participants must be physically present on the land for aggravated trespass. |
The court noted the case but held it was factually distinct and did not resolve the issue here, suggesting the offence may apply even if lawful actors are not physically present. |
| Dacre Son & Hartley Limited v North Yorkshire Trading Standards [2004] EWHC 2783 (Admin) |
Proper timing and raising of objections to charge formulation. |
The court held that defects in charge formulation should be raised early, not during a submission of no case to answer. |
| R v Graham and others [1997] 1 CrAppR 302 |
Approach to technical defects in charges and safety of conviction. |
The court applied the principle that minor technical defects should not result in dismissal if they do not affect the substance of the case. |
| Garfield v Maddocks [1974] QB 7 |
Interpretation of section 123 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 regarding defects in process and amendments. |
The court emphasized that slight variances causing no injustice should be cured by amendment rather than dismissal. |
| High Speed Two Limited v Maxey [2022] EWHC 1010 (QB) |
Contempt of court sanctions related to the protest conduct. |
Referenced in relation to the Interested Parties having been punished for contempt, affecting considerations of remittal. |
| R (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2017] EWHC 1794 (Admin) |
Discretion to remit cases for retrial. |
The court exercised discretion to remit the case for retrial despite delay, considering public interest and evidence cogency. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the meaning of "HS2 construction" within the context of the case and the Crown’s case presentation. It found that the term was intended as a broad, portmanteau phrase encompassing all activities necessary for the construction project, including preliminary clearance and eviction of protestors. The District Judge’s narrow interpretation excluding eviction was held to be incorrect and irrational.
The court further analysed procedural aspects, concluding that if any ambiguity existed in the charge, the correct approach was to allow an amendment under section 123 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 rather than dismissing the charges outright. The overriding objective of justice requires avoiding dismissal for technical defects that do not affect the substance of the case and can be remedied without injustice.
The court also considered whether the refusal to state a case was proper. Since the substantive challenge to the judge’s decision was well-founded and not frivolous, the refusal was erroneous. However, remitting the matter back to the District Judge for a case to be stated would serve no purpose given the court’s ruling.
The court addressed ancillary issues such as the physical presence requirement for lawful activity under section 68 and accepted that lawful eviction can constitute lawful activity for aggravated trespass. The court rejected the District Judge’s view that frustrating an eviction was not criminally relevant.
Finally, the court balanced the interests of justice, public interest, and delay, concluding that despite the passage of time and prior civil contempt sanctions, the criminal proceedings should be remitted for retrial before a different judge.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the DPP’s judicial review claim, quashing the District Judge’s decision to accept the submission of no case to answer and to refuse to state a case.
The case is directed to be remitted to the Magistrates' Court for retrial before a different judge. This decision means that the charges against the Interested Parties remain extant and will proceed to trial on their merits, including issues such as mens rea. The court clarified that lawful eviction is encompassed within the lawful activity of construction for the purposes of aggravated trespass. No new precedent was set beyond the application of existing principles to the facts. The ruling emphasizes the importance of interpreting charges in their factual and procedural context and the proper approach to procedural defects in criminal charges.