A British judge dropped all charges in London on Friday against Greta Thunberg and several environmental activists who had been accused of disrupting public order during a demonstration against fossil fuels. The group believed police used unlawful conditions when enforcing arrests during the protest.
The 21-year-old Swedish climate advocate and four co-defendants appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a second consecutive day, connected to the incident that unfolded outside a central London hotel on 17 October. The venue hosted a forum gathering senior executives from energy companies.
In delivering his ruling, Judge John Law pointed to deficiencies in how the arresting officers communicated with the activists, noting that police measures were unreasonable and hindered the activists from complying with instructions.
The judge stated that the conditions imposed were unnecessarily strict, drawing applause from family and supporters in the public gallery as he announced the discontinuation of the charges.
During the hearing, the prosecutor’s advocate, Luke Staton, argued for dropping the charges, describing the police directives as vague and potentially illegal. He contended that none of the activists who did not follow the stated conditions committed a crime due to the lack of clear guidelines.
Staton described the scene as striking, noting that there were no eyewitnesses inside the hotel where around a thousand people gathered, and there was no evidence of vehicles or any attempt to intervene with emergency services. The proceedings revealed uncertainty about what exactly was required of the protesters.
Thunberg had previously pleaded not guilty, along with other activists, to violating Article 14 of the Public Order Act. The latest hearing featured arguments from the defense team, who argued that the police communication was not specific enough and that protesters were given insufficient time to leave the area. They maintained that the instructions were unclear about what actions were permissible.
Lawyers for the defense claimed that police operations outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair did not provide clarity on what could be done or where protesters should move. On the opposite side, the prosecuting attorney asserted that evidence suggested the defendants had disturbed public order, though he acknowledged the arrests were contested as disproportionate by the defense.
Staton reminded the court that officers believed a serious disturbance was occurring within the community, which was used to justify the arrests. He noted that the hotel access remained blocked by protesters, affecting about a thousand people, including guests and delegates attending the energy forum who were unable to depart in time for flights.
According to the prosecution, officers had already tried other tactics to clear the scene but found them unsuccessful. While the legal framework was described as clear, the court heard that adequate opportunity to comply with police instructions should be provided before arrests are made. The defense argued that the activists chose to stay put when asked to leave.
Greenpeace spokesperson Maja Darlington commented that the decision represented a victory for the right to protest and criticized the growing trend of climate activists facing court actions for peaceful protest. Darlington emphasized that energy companies accumulate profits by selling fossil fuels, framing the ruling as a moment of validation for peaceful dissent. [Citation: Court proceedings and statements by involved parties]
Each defendant faced potential economic sanctions of 2,500 pounds, approximately 2,900 euros, though the charges were ultimately dropped. [Citation: Legal assessment of the case outcomes]