>> It seems pretty clear that the lawful business of opening the Shard to the public
>> was disrupted by the activities of the protestors as the management felt compelled to close
>> the viewing area.
>>
>> The protestors will of course have their day in court to plead their case.
You've quoted the law, so I won't repeat it.
However, causing some disruption to a business is, IMO, not the same as intentionally obstructing or preventing an activity.
That would, I suggest, apply to somebody who tries to prevent people entering a McDonald's, prevent them from purchasing or intimidating them to leave.
It wouldn't apply to somebody climbing up on the roof and holding up a banner, even if it did make people stop and look, or mean that the staff were distracted, or if the police were called.
It is trespass with intent to stop somebody doing something, not just trespass that causes some disruption as a by-product (which almost all protests would do).
As you say, they'll have their day in court. Hopefully it will go their way, but a disgruntled magistrate can misuse the law as easily as the police.
|
