Has the law lost all objectivity?

Last week in Maidstone Crown Court six intrepid climate change protesters who climbed to the top of the chimney at Kingsnorth power station, but also did damage costed at £30,000, were cleared of causing the damage.

Their defence was based on a clause in the law which can excuse damage if it is the result of action to prevent a greater evil. So, for instance, if you broke into property and did considerable damage because you could prevent imminent danger to many people or to other property, you could expect to be cleared.

The difficulty comes when your assessment may not be shared by others, as in the case where women broke into an establishment and did much damage to aircraft, or when animal rights protesters damage laboratories or wound scientists out of their convictions.

In Maidstone, the defenders produced experts who claimed that the connection between coal-fired power stations and global warming is demonstrable and could never be altered. (Such connections are denied by many - see the writings of Christopher Booker.)

The conclusion seems to be that motivation is everything, and the legal escape clause offers an excuse if you can persuade judge or jury that your motives were of the highest and would make your action serve a greater good.

If this principle had been applied in previous generations the trade union movement could have been much more violent and destructive, the suffragettes would not have been imprisoned and military discipline could have been much harsher.

But the whole legal process would have had a strong streak of anarchy and inconsistency, the rule of law would have become no more than a tendency to law. In a word common life would have become impossible, and a jungle.