A politically motivated verdict
A jury decided that Greenpeace campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station because of the defence's argument that the threat of man made global warming is greater than the threat of vandalism. Naturally, the Independent delighted in the verdict. But I can't help but feel that this was a politically motivated verdict, and not the first time that political beliefs have been used to justify criminal damage.
There will be many who will argue that "you have to respect the verdict of the jury". I wonder if they would have made the same argument after the Rodney King trial?