Cammiss, S, Hayes, G and Doherty, BJA ORCID: (2021) Necessity, Non‐Violent Direct Activism, and the Stansted 15: Reasserting ‘Hoffmann's Bargain’. The Modern Law Review.

[img] Text
'Necessity, Non-Violent Direct Activism, and the Stansted 15- Reasserting ‘Hoffmann's Bargain’ Modern Law Review 2021 (pre-publication version).docx - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (66kB)


In Thacker and ors the Court of Appeal overturned the convictions of the ‘Stansted 15’ due to a misdirection on the substantive offence. However, the court rejected their necessity defence, following Jones, as their actions were political, outweighing a desire to avoid a risk of death or serious injury; in a ‘functioning democratic state’ their claims should have been pursued through conventional means. This is a reaffirmation of what we call ‘Hoffmann's Bargain’; in Jones, Lord Hoffmann noted that non-violent protestors who act proportionately can expect the state to act with restraint, but a necessity defence is unavailable. We argue that this rejection of the defence is mistaken and overly broad for direct action cases. It also fails to acknowledge Valderamma-Vega, where the Court of Appeal held that defendants who claim duress may act for different motives as long as one is the avoidance of death or serious injury.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: The final version of this article and all relevant information related to it, including copyrights and more, can be found on the publisher website at;
Subjects: H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > School of Social, Political and Global Studies
Depositing User: Symplectic
Date Deposited: 05 Jan 2022 14:31
Last Modified: 23 Jun 2022 01:30

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item