Shell Seven verdict raises ‘big questions’
‘This verdict deserves attention as it raises big questions about how far the law can protect companies that do not take real action to deal with the climate emergency.’
Courts can no longer protect companies from ‘climate flak’. This was the conclusion of an article in the Financial Times (FT) in response to the ‘not guilty’ verdict for six of the ‘Shell Seven’ protestors, who included the Quaker Extinction Rebellion (XR) cofounder Ian Bray.
Writing in the FT, journalist Margaret Hefferman said: ‘This verdict deserves attention as it raises big questions about how far the law can protect companies that do not take real action to deal with the climate emergency.’
She claimed that ‘the Shell court case has revealed a greater public demand for climate action than many might have thought before’.
Hudderfield Friend Ian Bray was one of six protestors who were cleared of causing £25,000 worth of damage to the Shell headquarters in London, targeted for its role in the climate crisis.
The verdict has been hailed by many commentators as groundbreaking, as the jury voted ‘not guilty’ despite the judge saying there was no defence for their actions in law.
Following the verdict, Ian Bray told the Friend that ‘we need to see how it lands more broadly. It’s a life’s work’.
One of the defendants, XR co-founder Simon Bramwell, said it was ‘a significant victory for the consciousness of the British people’ regarding the climate crisis and government inaction.
