In the UK, a group of unaffiliated people went to a banquet by Just Stop Oil, a climate change activist group, and released electronic alarms tied to balloons. The banquet took place in a building with high ceilings, so even with a ladder, no one could reach the balloons or alarms to disable them. Was placing the balloons illegal?
Although the banquet was secular, it took place in a church building. Does this make a difference?
Starting at 8:10: https://youtu.be/y6flblkVh1I
There are likely several offences under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901.
Under s4 it is unlawful to enter into inclosed lands (which includes all buildings) without the consent of the owner or controller. The balloon releasers did not have explicit permission and entering with the intent to disrupt means they cannot rely upon implied permission.
s4B makes this an aggravated offence if the intention for entering is to disrupt any business or undertaking taking place on the inclosed lands. Because there were 3 or more people involved, the maximum penalty is 200 penalty units (currently $22,000) or 3 years.
In addition, the occupiers could seek damages under the torts of trespass or nuisance.
The more likely offence, if at all1, would be contrary to section 4A Public Order Act
A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person ... distress, he uses ... disorderly behaviour ... thereby causing that or another person distress.
An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place.
[edited for ease of reading]
Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. Source: CPS, Public Order Offences
FOR GENERAL INTEREST AND AWARENESS:
There are a number of potentially related offences that I have discounted for the reasons shown:
LOCKING ON contrary to sections 1 and 2 Public Order Act 2023 - fails to meet the definition of serious disruption
TRESPASSORY ASSEMBLIES contrary to section 14A Public Order Act 1986 - can only be committed in the "open air"
BURGLARY contrary to section 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 - hinges on the definition of "criminal damage" (very tenuous IMO)
TRESPASS ON DESIGNATED SITE contrary to section 128 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - fails to meet the definitions of "protected or designated site"
1There is nothing on open source nor via mainstream media (that I can find) to say whether a complaint has been made to the police or a criminal investigation is underway so this may all be moot.
The offence of aggravated trespass, s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, seems to fit the circumstances on the face of them.
(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.
It doesn't provide for a defence or lawful excuse.*
"Land" includes buildings: DPP v Chivers [2010] EWHC 1814 (Admin).
My understanding is that the people who set the alarms were invited to the banquet. However, the fact of the invitation of the banquet did not give them licence to release electronic alarms tied to balloons at the banquet.
The act need not be illegal in itself. The necessary element is that the person carried out the act with the intention of intimidating, obstructing or disrupting. The people who released the balloons seem to openly admit to intention to disrupt the banquet.
However, I doubt there will be any prosecutions in these particular circumstances. In which case the behaviour was legal.
*In contrast, Penalty for wilful obstruction s137 Highways Act 1980 starts, "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse". This is what Just Stop Oil rely on when they slow-walk along a road. They have the excuse of exercising the right to freedom of protest; they excercise their rights within the constraints so far tolerated by the authorities. Fewer people seem to be aware of the "lawful authority or excuse" than claim awareness of the Highways Act.
