R (Respondent) v McCafferty and others (Appellants)

Judgment scheduled

Case summary
Judgment details
Appeal
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0165

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) James McCafferty (2) Alberto Garcia (3) Tatum Paul (4) Sarah Benn (5) Catherine Cannon (6) Osian Dixon

Respondent(s)

Crown Prosecution Service

Issue

Does obstructing access to, and exit from, a private site by blocking a private road leading up to it involve an interference with “rights that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large” for the purposes of the statutory offence of public nuisance?

Facts

The appellants (“the defendants”), members of the group “Animal Rebellion”, took part in a protest outside dairy works owned and operated by Müller UK. The dairy works were accessible only via an entrance on a private road called Pointon Way. In the morning of 8 September 2022, the defendants obstructed the entrance to the Muller site by chaining themselves to temporary fencing in front of it or gluing themselves to the road surface on Pointon Way. The defendants remained there for four hours until they were arrested, during which time it was impossible for vehicles to enter or leave the site. As a result, employees finishing their night shift were unable to drive home. The defendants were charged with an offence of intentionally/recklessly causing public nuisance contrary to section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. At trial in the Crown Court, the defendants entered not guilty pleas. At the end of the prosecution case, the defendants entered submissions of “no case to answer”. A submission of “no case to answer” is when the defence submits that the case against the defendant(s), or at least one count/charge, should be stopped at that stage as there is insufficient evidence on which the court, properly directed, could convict. The defendants argued that there was no evidence before the jury that they had obstructed the exercise or enjoyment of “a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large”, as required by s78 of the 2022 Act. This was because they had obstructed a private road leading up to private premises. The trial judge accepted this argument and ruled that there was no case to answer. The prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), who allowed the appeal and made an order for the Crown Court proceedings to be resumed. The defendants now appeal to the Supreme Court.