The charges relate to criminal damage. The boat wasn't his to damage. That's open and shut. He told his crew to keep filming him as he stabbed the boat. He has no defence in that regard, only mitigation (the whole sending a message to government thing, much like a protestor swinging from the cenotaph is "just" sending a message). It is a point of fact that the boat belongs to someone else. It probably belonged to a criminal gang in the execution of a crime. In which case, like the guns, the screwdrivers, the drills, and the other paraphernalia used in crime, the ownership is surrendered. Do you really think "Fingers" gets his picks back after doing a stretch? It might belong to an innocent party (Hans from Dusseldorf). If its shown to be a stolen boat, that was uninsured, do you support Thomas being the big man, and buying Hans (or set up a GoFundMe) a new boat. The intent to endanger is harder to prove, because it was about 5 seconds between the French sailor boarding the boat and Thomas then attempting to stab it, because Thomas could clam he hadn't realised until after the fact that the Frenchman was in danger. Proceedings start today, but it will be mostly administrative, with the jury sworn in, some technicalities from the judge, and the Prosecution laying out their case. You won't hear from the Defence today. The CPS has charged Thomas with one count of criminal damage under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Identity: establishing that Thomas was the person who damaged the inflatable boat. Act: establishing that the boat was deliberately damaged rather than accidentally damaged. Property belonging to another: establishing that the boat was not Thomas's property and therefore could constitute property belonging to another for the purposes of the offence. Damage: demonstrating that the boat was actually damaged. Mens rea: establishing that Thomas intended to damage the boat or was reckless as to whether it would be damaged. Absence of lawful excuse: anticipating the defence argument that the circumstances gave him a lawful excuse. On video, he is heard issuing instructions, and what he intends to do. We see clearly a folding pocket knife in his hand, We certainly hear air hissing, indicating his knife. There is no doubt this is not accidental. The defence could try a few things: Firstly they might argue on a territorial technicality. While on video Thomas is heard to shout out "this is English (sic) waters", they might advance the argument that their client is in fact an idiot, a man of limited intelligence, and consequently he had no idea where he was, and that the incident occurred outside British territorial waters (and that gets interesting specifically related to the Channel), thus outside UK jurisdiction. Argue that he had a lawful excuse. His excuse was he believed that the boat was going to be returned to the smuggling gangs. For ordinary criminal damage under s.1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the statutory lawful-excuse defence can apply where the defendant honestly believed that the circumstances gave him a lawful excuse. CPS guidance confirms that an honest belief can potentially provide the defence even if the belief was mistaken. The Crown's counter is to accept he genuinely believed the boat would be reused, perhaps accepting that as his subjective belief. But that belief did not make his particular act of damaging the boat a lawful means of preventing the anticipated crime. The connection between damaging this particular boat and preventing future smuggling was too remote, and there were lawful alternatives available, such as informing the authorities. Consequently, the statutory requirements for the defence aren't satisfied. CPS guidance, discussing the prevention-of-crime/lawful-excuse principles, notes the courts' reluctance to permit criminal acts as a form of private enforcement. If Thomas chooses the position "I believed this boat was going to be used again for smuggling, therefore I decided to destroy it", his position, in terms of statutory defence is weak. But if he suddenly decides he is a friend of the refugee, and those coming on boats are not military-age men, but "wimmin and kids" (I 'ave kids of me own, m'lud, it breaks me 'eart), he has a stronger defence if he goes with the line "I believed people on this boat were in immediate danger, and damaging the boat was necessary to prevent that danger". The Defence could produce plenty of evidence of bloated dead kids washing up or being recovered. They have t demonstrate an immediate threat to life. Of course, if he tries that line and is acquitted, he'd have to say (or his solicitor will say) on the steps outside the Court that the victims in all of this are the illegal immigrants, and the government needs to act more strongly against the criminal networks, rather than punishing victims. That doesn't play to his core support though of self proclaimed Crusaders. He could try the Christian line, get on his knees and pray a bit, a bit of "O Lord, I beseech you".
Create an account or sign in to comment