In a dramatic courtroom verdict that has sent shockwaves through the environmental movement, two Just Stop Oil activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage to Stonehenge during a high-profile protest.
The decision came after a jury at Salisbury Crown Court deliberated for just two hours before finding Rajan Naidu, 73, and Niamh Lynch, 21, not guilty of damaging the ancient monument.
The Stonehenge Protest That Captured National Attention
The incident occurred on June 19th, when the activists sprayed orange powder paint on the iconic stones while demanding that the incoming government commit to ending fossil fuel extraction by 2030.
Despite the dramatic visuals that circulated globally on social media, the prosecution failed to convince the jury that the protesters had caused lasting harm to the 5,000-year-old monument.
Defence Arguments Prove Decisive
The activists' legal team presented compelling evidence that the powder was simply cornflour mixed with water-soluble orange pigment. Crucially, experts confirmed the substance would wash away with rainwater and caused no permanent damage to the ancient stones.
This technical detail became the cornerstone of the defence argument, ultimately persuading jurors that the protest fell short of meeting the legal definition of criminal damage.
Mixed Reactions to the Verdict
English Heritage, the charity responsible for maintaining Stonehenge, expressed disappointment with the outcome. A spokesperson reiterated that the organization "does not condone protests at its monuments" and maintains that any intervention at heritage sites is unacceptable.
Meanwhile, climate activists have celebrated the verdict as a victory for peaceful protest rights. The decision comes amid ongoing debates about the boundaries of environmental activism and the legal protections afforded to historical sites.
Broader Implications for Protest Movements
This acquittal is likely to have significant ramifications for future environmental protests in the UK. The swift jury decision suggests that carefully planned demonstrations causing no permanent damage may find sympathy in courtrooms, even when targeting nationally treasured sites.
As the climate crisis intensifies, this case sets an important precedent for how British courts balance property rights against the urgency of environmental activism.
