Trial of activists accused of damaging Rishi Sunak’s home adjourned

Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, Alexandra Wilson, 32, Mathieu Soete, 38, and Michael Grant, 64, are on trial at York Magistrates Court over the demonstration which saw Mr Sunak’s mansion in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton, draped in black fabric and a banner saying “no new oil”.

All four deny causing criminal damage.

The trial was today (Thursday, July 25) adjourned to September 20.

On Tuesday the court heard that the four activists were “reckless” when they climbed onto the roof of Mr Sunak’s house during the anti-oil protest last year.

Prosecutors said the activists damaged 15 roof tiles, causing just under £3,000 damage at the house, during the five-hour protest.

Mr Sunak, his wife Akshata Murty and their two daughters had left for their summer holiday and were not at home during the protest, but staff at the property were “shocked” to find Greenpeace activists in the grounds on the morning of Thursday, August 3, the court heard.

Rishi Sunak and his wife Akshata Murty who were on holiday from their North Yorkshire home during the protest (Image: James Manning/PA)

Prosecutor Victoria Ailes said: “The allegation is that in the course of a protest staged on the roof of a private property, these defendants caused damage to tiles and were at the very least reckless as to doing so.

“[The defendants] were the four individuals who, wearing climbing equipment and using ladders, gained access to the roof of the property.

“They used straps to attach ropes to the chimneys. They moved over to the south side and unfurled black drapes and a banner saying ‘no new oil’.”

A statement from a gardener at the property said Scott Hall, the private chief of staff for the Murty-Sunak family, “looked shocked and swore” when he found out that Greenpeace activists had gained access to the grounds.

The statement said Mr Hall confronted one of the protesters who had not climbed on the roof, “telling them this was outrageous and they had to leave”.

The court heard the activist said “they wouldn’t leave until they were done” and when told they were trespassing, replied that “their cause was more important”.

Owen Greenhall, defending, showed Mr Hall pictures of damaged roof tiles in an area he said the protesters did not go.

Asked whether the images showed cracks he was not aware of, Mr Hall said: “That appears to be a fair conclusion.”

Mr Greenhall said the defence case was that “these defendants did not cause any damage, that it was pre-existing”.

He told the court: “If there was any damage, it certainly wasn’t done intentionally. These defendants were not aware of the risk of damage. They were taking care.”

The trial continues.