Four Greenpeace activists have been cleared of breaking the law when they climbed onto the roof of Rishi Sunak’s country house in North Yorkshire.

The prosecution accused Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, of Lower Crone Street, Shiremoor, North Tyneside, Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Bowling Green Terrace, St Ives, Mathieu Soete, 38, of Provincie Straat, Antwerp, Belgium and Michael Grant, 64, of William Burn Green, Rosewell, Midlothian, of causing criminal damage by deliberately damaging the roof or being reckless as to whether it would be damaged.

The CPS alleged during the five-hour protest last year the activists damaged 15 roof tiles, causing just under £3,000 damage at the house at Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. At the time, Mr Sunak was prime minister.

But the defence persuaded district judge Adrian Lower that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to convict any of them. All four had denied the charge.

RECOMMENDED READING

York Magistrates' Court heard in July 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, last year.

Victoria Ailes, prosecuting, told Mr Lower: “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’.”

The four Greenpeace activists leave York Magistrates Court during their trialThe four Greenpeace activists leave York Magistrates Court during their trial (Image: Danny Lawson/PA Wire)

Owen Greenhall, for the defence, said: “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.”

After hearing two days of evidence and legal argument, the judge told the four: “I have come to the conclusion that there is no case for you to answer. The evidence against all of you is so weak or tenuous no reasonable tribunal directed in accordance with the law could convict you.”

He formally acquitted all four and they walked free from court.