Does the XR vs. Shell case create precedent for environmental activism being necessary?
<p><a href="https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2021/04/23/breaking-the-xr-activists-who-took-on-oil-giant-shell-and-won/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Six Extinction Rebellion activists were charged</a> with criminal damage to the Shell HQ building in London’s Waterloo in April 2019.  All admitted the actions, and five of the six relied on the defense that their actions were necessary, in that their actions that day were required to prevent greater harm, specifically that they raise the alarm about the threat of climate change and pressure the UK government to act.  The judge directed the jury that these 5 defendants had no defense under the law.  The sixth defendant claimed that he believed Shell (considered as a whole, including all the staff, shareholders and management) would have consented to his actions, and this was accepted by the judge as recognised under law.  All six were found not guilty by the jury.</p>
<p>Does this create precedent for environmental activism being necessary, such that it could be cited in subsequent cases to demonstrate that similar action may be protected by the law?</p>

<p><strong>Does this create precedent?</strong></p>
<p><strong>NO</strong> This was a Crown Court case, only the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal can set precedent which it did with similar circumstances in <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/swarb.co.uk/regina-v-hill-and-hall-cacd-1989/amp/" rel="noreferrer">R v Hill 1989</a></p>

united-kingdom jury precedent environmental criminal-damage