In a stunning legal outcome that's sent shockwaves through both environmental and heritage circles, two Just Stop Oil protestors have been cleared of criminal damage charges following their dramatic orange powder paint attack on Stonehenge.
The verdict emerged from Winchester Crown Court where Rajan Naidu, 73, and Niamh Lynch, 21, argued their actions were justified to highlight the urgent climate crisis. The court heard how the activists targeted the ancient monument in June 2023, spraying the iconic stones with orange cornflour that was easily washed away by English Heritage staff.
The Defence's Argument
During the tense trial, the defendants maintained they had taken extensive precautions to avoid permanent damage to the 5,000-year-old UNESCO World Heritage Site. Their legal team presented evidence showing they used a substance that would cause no lasting harm, positioning their protest as a proportionate response to what they described as "government inaction" on climate change.
Naidu, a former museum professional from Birmingham, told the court: "We weren't there to damage our heritage but to protect the future of humanity. When you see the world burning around you, ordinary measures become inadequate."
Mixed Reactions to Verdict
The not-guilty verdict has sparked immediate controversy. English Heritage expressed deep disappointment, stating that while the powder caused no permanent damage, the incident caused significant distress to their staff and visitors who witnessed the protest.
Meanwhile, climate campaigners have hailed the decision as a victory for peaceful protest rights. A Just Stop Oil spokesperson declared: "This verdict recognises that when facing existential threats, citizens have both a right and a responsibility to sound the alarm."
Broader Implications
Legal experts suggest this case could set an important precedent for future climate protest trials in the UK. The acquittal comes amid ongoing national debate about where to draw the line between legitimate protest and criminal damage, particularly when targeting culturally significant sites.
The prosecution had argued that regardless of the activists' motives, their actions crossed a legal line and caused unnecessary alarm and cleanup costs. However, the jury's decision after several hours of deliberation suggests they found the defence's arguments about the climate emergency more compelling.
