Is Civil disobedience ever defensible in a court even if the laws are constitutional?

Question

Has civil disobedience ever successfully been a defence in a court of law despite the accused's acts being completely unlawful and the law being constitutional ? what leads to a successful civil disobedience defence ?

Answer 1

There is not a civil disobedience defense in a court of law.

When you engage in civil disobedience, you accept the fact that you may face criminal sanctions and do so anyway out of your commitment to the cause.

A judge could take your civil disobedience motive as an aggravating factor, a mitigating factor, or could ignore it, in the sentencing phase following a conviction for a crime motivated by civil disobedience. An executive branch official might also consider this motive when evaluating whether to pardon or commute the sentence of someone convicted of a crime intended as civil disobedience.

Answer 2

A law can be Constitutional and still be practically, politically, or legally unenforceable

The Oxford languages definition of civil disobedience is:

the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest.

Given that definition, we can assume that the perpetrator knowingly and willingly broke the relevant law. As you have posed the question, a challenge to the validity of the law itself is doomed to failure. Therefore, if the prosecution can prove the elements, the only appropriate verdict is guilty. Should be a slam-dunk, right?

Well, no. There are many ways of “getting away with it.”

Identification

The government needs to know that it was you that did it. First, so they can find you and charge you, second, so they can prove it was you that did it.

In a mass protest, with hundreds or thousands of participants, this is a non-trivial problem. It’s not enough for them to prove that you were there; they have to prove that it was specifically you that did whatever it is you are charged with.

Protection of the herd

You know why antelopes travel in herds? Because, while the lion might get one of us, odds are it isn’t going to be me.

The police can’t charge everyone and they will typically charge those who are violent over those who aren’t.

On the right side of history

Have the right cause at the right time and it might be politically expedient just to let things lie.

Knowing you did it and proving you did it are two seperate things

Even if the prosecution overcomes the identification problem, they still have to produce enough evidence to prove each and every element of the crime as will as disproving any and all possible defences.

This can fail for all sorts of reasons: witnesses may recant or not be believed, physical evidence may be inadmissible, video images may be blurry and inconclusive etc.

In most civil disobedience cases, the defendant may not mount an active defence because the martyrdom is part of the plan - but, embarrassing the government with an acquittal might be just as good.

A law can be illegally executed without being unconstitutional

In is not unknown for police or other government agents to exceed the powers that the law gives them. This may make unlawful actions unprosecutable; in some cases legally because those illegal acts by the government may make your response legal or because it might expose the government to bad publicity or legal liability that they would prefer to avoid.

Lawful excuse

Many crimes specify that there can be a lawful excuse for performing what would otherwise be a legal act. If you can demonstrate you had a lawful excuse, you’re free to go.

More generally, most jurisdictions recognise necessity as a lawful excuse for all crimes. It can be a bit of a stretch to make this out but it is a possibility.

Prosecution Overreach

There is a temptation to overlook the trivial crimes that can be trivially proved in order to go for the headline grabbing big crimes which, when the facts are considered impartially, you didn’t actually commit.

This is particularly the case when the definitions of the crimes contain words like “reckless”, “gross”, “severe”, “disproportionate”, “critical” etc. What might look like “severe disruption to critical infrastructure” to the prosecutor, may look like “minor disruption to incidental infrastructure” to the judge.

Runaway jury

You might be guilty, the evidence might show you’re guilty but a bloody-minded jury might acquit anyway.