Climate change activists found guilty after obstructing oil group's building

John Wurckler, Kathryn Kelly, Anna Molan, Nick Abel and Cate Adams (front, from left) preparing to defend their charges. Photo: Albert McKnight.

Five activists and retired professionals who protested outside an oil and gas organisation’s building to protest climate change and fossil fuel policies have all been found guilty of their charges.

The ACT Magistrates Court has previously heard that about 30 people gathered outside the Civic office of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association on 27 February 2023.

Dr Anna Molan, Dr Nick Abel and John Wurcker blocked one entrance to the building, while Cate Adams and Kathryn Kelly blocked another. Police ordered them to leave, but they did not and after 45 minutes they were arrested.

Each of them could be described as “activists of conscience”, their lawyer Bernard Collaery told the court on Tuesday (6 February) when Magistrate Ian Temby handed down his decision.

“The catalyst for these proceedings is climate change. The defendants are all deeply concerned about the impact of climate change and sought to bring attention to the urgency of the situation which climate change poses to the Earth,” the magistrate said.

He said the defendants thought it was important that governments and individuals reduce their use of fossil fuels to limit the progression of climate change and that the current government policies were inadequate.

They also thought APPEA “wielded an inappropriate level of influence over the government in this respect”, the magistrate said.

The five defendants were each charged with unreasonable obstruction.

Protesters gathered at the building on Marcus Clarke Street on 27 February 2023. Photo: Supplied.

Five people were arrested at the protest on 27 February 2023. Photo: Supplied.

A scene from the protest outside the APPEA building on Marcus Clarke Street on 27 February 2023. Photo: Supplied.

Magistrate Temby said the group had asked him to find that the obstruction was not unreasonable, given the scale of the climate emergency they sought to address.

But he thought it was “not possible for the court to express a judgment as to whether, in the case of a protest, a particular cause being promoted is of sufficient social value or importance such as to render the adopted form of obstruction not unreasonable”.

“The fact that they sought to target the business premises of an organisation that was engaged in lawful activities because they took issue with the influence that they perceived the organisation to have over government policies with which they disagreed points to the obstruction being unreasonable,” he said.

Magistrate Temby did say he had “no doubt” that the defendants honestly believed that what they were doing was the right thing, but he was not satisfied that they believed that obstructing the premises was the only reasonable way of dealing with the climate change emergency.

“The actions of the defendants were not directed to dealing with the climate change emergency that they believed existed, and nor were they compelled to break the law,” he said.

“Rather, their actions were directed at drawing greater public attention and sympathy to their cause, including through social and other media, in order to prompt others to join in their efforts to influence government to change its policies in relation to climate change.”

He found each of the defendants guilty, although Kelly received a non-conviction.