On 19 January 2017, armed with a hammer, the Revd Daniel Woodhouse, a Methodist Minister, and Sam Walton, of Quakers in Britain, were apprehended by security staff when they forced entry through a door into an aircraft hangar at BAE Wharton. Their intention was to disable aircraft that were bound for Saudi Arabia for use by the Saudi Air Force. They were charged with criminal damage to fences and the door. The nature of the damage was not in dispute and the court accepted that the damage had in fact been done.

Under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 5 provides a limited defence where the purpose of the damage was to protect property belonging to the accused or another or a right or interest in property which was or which the accused believed to be vested in himself or herself or another and which at the time of the alleged offence the accused believed was in immediate need of protection and that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Woodhouse and Walton argued that the aircraft that they intended to damage would be used by the Saudi Air Force to destroy property in Yemen and that such use would be unlawful and amount to a war crime.

DJ Clarke described the defendants as impressive and eloquent men who held strong views about what they were doing and what they wanted to achieve. He rejected the prosecution's contention that a defendant would not be entitled to take action which would be the inevitable consequence of warfare, provided always that that damage did not amount to a war crime, on the grounds that the statute does not so provide. The court was concerned solely with the question of a defendant's honestly held beliefs. He accepted their defence and acquitted them; however, he emphasised that the case was highly unusual in terms of its personalities, the confluence of events and the existence of an ongoing state of war. It was in many ways unique, such that the decision sets no precedent. [Frank Cranmer]

This case was unreported. The note author is grateful to Daniel Hill for supplying a photocopy of the judgment.