The co-founder of Extinction Rebellion caused more than £27,000 worth of damage when she took a hammer to the window of a government building to protest against the environmental impacts of HS2, a court heard on Monday.
Dr Gail Bradbrook climbed on top of the glass canopy at the Department for Transport building in London on the morning of 15 October 2019. She stuck posters on the glass referencing the climate risk that HS2 posed, Isleworth crown court heard.
Kate Wilkinson, prosecuting, said that after a little time Bradbrook took a hammer and a chisel-like object from her rucksack and started banging the glass window of the building, causing “significant” cracks and holes.
“She was on a platform addressing the press and passersby for about one hour,” Wilkinson said.
The jury was told that Bradbrook was taken down by police, who used a cherrypicker crane to extract her from her position.
The prosecution said her actions caused £27,660 worth of damage. Bradbrook was charged with criminal damage, to which she has pleaded not guilty. The jury members were told they must try the case according to the evidence they heard.
“Our jury system is not a mini-polling station where 12 people are asked to cast their vote on difficult political issues of the day or provide a service for those wanting to spread … their political agenda by asking journalists to spread the word or evoke sympathy to their case,” said Wilkinson.
She said the jury was not there to criticise HS2 or consider what should be done in relation to the climate crisis. “Some of you may even share her beliefs, but as you will be directed, the law is clear and is dedicated to protect all of us in our country. No matter how strongly you feel about an issue, you are not allowed to cause serious damage to other people’s property.”
Bradbrook, 51, is representing herself in court. Judge Edmunds told the jury: “There is no dispute that Gail Bradbrook holds strong and sincere views on the dangers of climate change.
“It is not disputed that she was motivated by her beliefs, but the case is not about whether you agree or disagree with those beliefs or about climate change generally.”
He said the jury had only to decide whether the prosecution had made them sure that Bradbrook had damaged property, that the property belonged to someone else, that Bradbrook intended to damage the property, and that she did not have a lawful excuse.
The judge said: “People have rights to express themselves by way of protest under the law. If a person taking part in a protest causes damage which is minor or temporary, there may be a question that a jury has to decide whether it is proportionate to prosecute them.”
But he said that where significant damage was caused, of more than £5,000, people could not claim they had a lawful excuse because they were exercising their right to freedom of expression.
The case continues.
