Four Greenpeace activists who staged a “No new oil” protest on the roof of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire manor house have been accused of damaging 15 of the former prime minister’s roof tiles.
A court heard that the six Welsh blue tiles and nine Westmorland tiles were damaged when the activists demonstrated on the roof of Sunak’s home.
The repair cost was £2,937.96 including VAT, the court heard, and tree surgeons who were not able to work at the property because of the protest still charged their daily rate of £1,450.
The four are facing what is expected to be a two-day trial before Judge Lower at York magistrates court.
Mathieu Soete, 38, Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, Alexandra Wilson, 32, and Michael Grant, 64, have pleaded not guilty to criminal damage.
The court heard that the four protesters climbed on to the roof of Sunak’s house at Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton, on 3 August last year. They were demonstrating against the government decision to expand North Sea oil and gas drilling.
The prosecution showed slides of damage to roof tiles in 15 different places, which they said was caused by the “reckless” protesters who climbed on to the roof before unfurling a black banner down the front of the house.
A roofer who carried out an inspection said he could tell the damage was recent due to “weathering and colouration”, the prosecution said.
The first witness was Scott Hall, the chief of staff to Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty, who was staying with his family in the property’s coach house while Sunak and his family were on holiday.
Hall said he was in the pool house when he was alerted to an intrusion on to the property. He approached the Greenpeace protesters. “I asked them what they were doing, then I suggested that they were not permitted to be where they were and I asked them to leave.”
He said the house was “a well-maintained property” and he would have been aware of damage to tiles before the protest because there would have been leaks “rectified almost immediately”.
The defence barrister, Owen Greenhall, showed Hall stills of damaged tiles that could not have been broken by the protesters.
Asked whether the images showed cracks he was not aware of, Hall said: “That appears to be a fair conclusion.”
Greenhall also pointed to the poor state of some of the property’s window frames. Hall agreed: “There are some that could be better.”
The defence barrister said the defence case was that “these defendants did not cause any damage, that it was pre-existing”.
He added: “If there was any damage, it certainly wasn’t done intentionally. These defendants were not aware of the risk of damage. They were taking care.”
The judge said he was aware that a police officer had trodden on one tile, damaging it, but that was not part of the prosecution case.
The judge remarked: “I feel I have learned an awful lot about tiling today.”
The trial continues.
