Director of Public Prosecutions v Cathy Eastburn
[2023] EWHC 1063 (Admin)
Joshua Smith & Ors v R
13 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1040
Court of Appeal
Five people were convicted for disrupting a Formula 1 race as a protest. They argued they hadn't put enough people at risk, but the court said they did endanger racers, marshals, and others involved, which is enough to be considered a crime. The court explained the law doesn't need a specific number of people at risk, and all the appeals were rejected.
Key Facts
- •Five appellants and one other (Bethany Mogie, who later abandoned her appeal) were convicted of causing a public nuisance under section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
- •The defendants were part of the Just Stop Oil campaign and protested at the British Grand Prix by entering the race track.
- •Their actions caused a risk of serious harm (death or injury) to drivers, marshals, and others at the race.
- •The appellants argued that no reasonable jury could find that they created a risk of serious harm to a 'section of the public', citing issues with the definition and application of the 'section of the public' criteria.
- •One appellant, David Baldwin, additionally argued insufficient evidence existed to establish his secondary liability.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'public nuisance' and the requirement that it affects a 'section of the public', not just individuals.
Attorney General v PYA Quarries [1957] 2 QB 169; R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 459
Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 creates a statutory offence of causing public nuisance, abolishing the common law offence.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, section 78
The test for a submission of no case to answer (R v Galbraith).
R v Galbraith 73 Cr. App. R. 124
Principles of secondary liability (R v Jogee).
R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The court held that the judge's errors, if any, worked in the appellants' favour. The evidence showed a risk of serious harm to a section of the public, including drivers and marshals, even though the cars were slowing down. The appellants’ actions, considered collectively, created the risk to a sufficiently large group of people to constitute a 'section of the public'. The court rejected the argument that only the drivers of the last two cars were at risk; the risk extended to all drivers on that part of the track and marshals responding to the incident. The court also found sufficient evidence to support David Baldwin's secondary liability.