‘War crimes’ defence against Israel company protest convictions fails in Supreme Court

7 February 2014 by

AHAVA-Caressing-Body-Sorbet-AH-013_largeRichardson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] UKSC 8 – read judgment / press summary 

The tactics of protesters engaging in demonstrations, or acts of civil disobedience, frequently raise interesting questions of law. A demonstration by two activists opposed to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, who entered a shop in Covent Garden which sold produce from the Dead Sea, produced on an Israeli settlement, recently resulted in the Supreme Court addressing two such questions.

First, in what circumstances can someone who trespasses on premises and disrupts the activities of the occupiers avoid prosecution by arguing that those activities were in some way unlawful?; and second (obliquely) is the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank an offence under English law? The short answers were (1) only when the unlawfulness is integral to the occupier’s activity; and (2) probably not.

Until it closed in 2011, Ahava was a shop in Covent Garden, London, which sold cosmetic products manufactured on the Dead Sea. The products were manufactured in an Israeli settlement on the West Bank, with the settlement (which was encouraging Israeli citizens to move to the West Bank) holding a minority shareholding in the company. The defendants objected to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and in particular to the growth of Israeli settlements. Aiming to draw attention to the situation, they and some others entered the Ahava store in Covent Garden on 2 October 2010, carrying a concrete tube. They locked their arms together through the tube with a padlock to which they claimed to have no key, then refused, or were unable, to leave the store when asked to do so by an employee. The store had to close while police officers arrived, freed the defendants using tools, and arrested them.

Aggravated trespass, and “lawful activity

The defendants were charged with aggravated trespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which provides that:

(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—

(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

(b) of obstructing that activity, or

(c) of disrupting that activity…

(2) Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is ‘lawful’ for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence or trespassing on the land…”

According to the Supreme Court, this offence can be broken down into four essential elements:

i) the defendant must be a trespasser on the land;

ii) there must be a person or persons lawfully on the land (that is to say not themselves trespassing), who are either engaged in or about to engage in some lawful activity;

iii) the defendant must do an act on the land;

iv) which is intended by him to intimidate all or some of the persons on the land out of that activity, or to obstruct or disrupt it.

It follows that, if the activity being carried on by those on the land is unlawful, the trespassers may have a defence.

In this case, the defendants had no defence to i), iii) or iv), but contested their prosecution on the grounds that the activity being carried out by Ahava, namely the retail selling of products produced in a West Bank settlement, was itself unlawful, for four reasons:

i) Ahava was aiding and abetting a war crime i.e. Israeli settlement construction;

ii) the products were the products of that war crime;

iii) Ahava was cheating the Inland Revenue by importing these products as if they were Israeli products, whereas they were in fact produced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories;

iv) the products were misleadingly labelled as coming from the “Dead Sea, Israel”

Degrees of lawfulness

The question for the Supreme Court was whether the words “lawful activity” in the Act should be limited to acts or events that are “integral” to the activities at the premises in question. It began by observing that:

i) an offence, for the purposes of the Act, means an offence under English law;

ii) the Crown is not required to disprove the commission of every conceivable offence by those present on the land in order to make out an aggravated trespass charge. It is for the defendant to raise the issue of which offences they say were being committed by those on the land – Ayliffe v DPP [2005] EWHC 684 (Admin) at [50]

iii) where the defendant satisfies the evidential burden, it is for the Crown to disprove the assertion that the offence was being committed on the land.

However, for a defendant seeking to rely on this defence, merely showing that there was some degree of unlawfulness about the activities being carried on will not be enough. The court must first address the question of what the overall activity of those on the premises is, then ask whether or not it is unlawful. It should not enquire into the defendant’s motives, but rather focus on the broader activity – [12]. The Supreme Court’s answer was therefore that any potential offence raised by the defendant must be “integral” to the activity – [13].

“Integral” is to be understood to mean that “the criminal offence must be… not collateral to or remote from [the activity of the occupants]. It does not mean that the illegality must be so obvious as not to call for more than the barest enquiry” – [14], qualifying the Divisional Court’s view that the activity must be “patently unlawful”.

On the facts of this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the District Judge who had originally convicted the defendants that the potential offences which they relied on were, at best, merely collateral to Ahava’s lawful activity – selling products in their shop – so that the defence was not available.

Is settling Israelis in the West Bank a crime in English law?

The Supreme Court’s approach to this secondary was somewhat cursory, as its decision on the primary question disposed of the case. Similar issues have, however, been raised in other cases where protesters have committed acts of civil disobedience and claimed that they were preventing war crimes from being committed – R v Jones [2006] UKHL 16, where activists were convicted of criminal damage at a military base and claimed that they were trying to prevent the Iraq war. Courts in this country have traditionally been reticent to make judgments on the legality of the conduct of foreign governments, including Israel. However, the Supreme Court did note at [17] that the transfer by an occupying power of part of its own civilian population into a territory which it occupies is potentially a crime in English law (where the offender is resident in this country), by virtue of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.


This case clearly raises a broader question as to how the criminal law should deal with acts of civil disobedience with a political aim. Lord Hoffmann said in Jones at [89] that “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country”. However, a willingness on the part of protestors who break the law to gain attention for their cause to accept subsequent arrest and conviction very frequently forms part of the deal.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

1 comment;

  1. Andrew says:

    The law should be so interpreted as to protect the ordinary course of business and to let private individuals go about their occasions. Or where do you stop? If an Israeli citizen checks into a hotel and gives an address in a settlement is the hotel to be said to be handling the proceeds of crime when the bill is settled?

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: