On June 19, 2024, the tranquil landscape of Stonehenge was momentarily transformed when three climate activists sprayed the iconic stones with a burst of orange powder. The protest, staged by members of the direct action group Just Stop Oil, was designed to highlight the ongoing climate emergency and demand urgent action on fossil fuels. Now, more than a year later, the legal aftermath of this headline-grabbing event has come to a dramatic close, with all three activists acquitted after a high-profile trial at Salisbury Crown Court.
The activists—Rajan Naidu, 74, a campaigner for human rights and social justice; Niamh Lynch, 23, then an Oxford University student and now studying ecology and conservation at the University of Exeter; and Luke Watson, 36, a carpenter—never denied their involvement. They openly acknowledged spraying Stonehenge with two colour blasters filled with cornflour, talc, and orange dye. Their protest took place just one day before the 2024 summer solstice, when some 15,000 people were expected to gather at the ancient monument for celebrations (according to The Guardian and BBC).
Watson purchased the equipment and drove his co-accused to Stonehenge in his grandmother's petrol car. After crossing boundary ropes and trespassing into the protected area, Naidu and Lynch, both dressed in white Just Stop Oil T-shirts, discharged the orange powder onto the megalithic stones. They then sat in silence before the monument, awaiting arrest, as other Just Stop Oil supporters filmed the demonstration and released footage to the public (The Independent).
The immediate aftermath saw the powder cleaned from the stones at a cost of £620, with no lasting damage reported—a fact repeatedly emphasized by the defense. Prosecutors, however, described the demonstration as a "carefully planned" act of "blatant and clear vandalism," arguing that it could have caused serious distress, annoyance, or inconvenience to the public. They invoked the relatively new public nuisance charge, introduced by the 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which carries a maximum jail term of ten years (The Guardian).
During the 10-day trial at Salisbury Crown Court, the activists and their legal team presented a robust defense rooted in human rights law. They cited Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect freedom of speech and the right to protest. The trio argued their actions were a peaceful protest, carefully planned to avoid lasting harm, and justified by the urgency of the climate crisis. "The rights of others were not greatly interfered with," they contended, and their choice of powder—cornflour, talc, and orange dye—was made specifically to prevent permanent damage (BBC).
Judge Paul Dugdale, in his instructions to the jury, underscored the delicate balance at the heart of the case. "In any society there will be those whose opinions we agree with and those whose opinions we disagree," he said. "The essence of a free society and freedom of speech is that everyone’s entitled to express their opinion even when we disagree with what they say. If individuals disagree with what our government is doing on certain matters, they are entitled to protest about the government’s actions or inactions. All of this is the essence of our free society" (The Independent).
The jury, after six hours of deliberation, acquitted Naidu, Lynch, and Watson of all charges on October 31, 2025. The verdict was greeted with relief and celebration among the defendants and their supporters. Francesca Cociani, the trio’s solicitor from Hodge Jones & Allen, declared, "It is a relief that the jury has decided to uphold the right to peaceful protest. It is a right that has long been, and should remain, an essential pillar of our democratic society but we are seeing time and time again that this right is being eroded." She further criticized the public nuisance charge as "wholly inadequate" and "an affront to their right to protest" (BBC).
Outside the court, the activists reflected on the broader significance of their protest and the trial. Naidu, who describes himself as a campaigner for peace and social justice, did not mince words: "The judicial system must wake up and begin to play its shamefully neglected role in defending us and other species from rapacious billionaire class climate criminals. We need a global Fossil Fuel Non-proliferation Treaty right now." He also compared the legislation under which they were charged to the repressive measures used against suffragettes in the early 20th century, warning, "It’s highly repressive legislation, it’s retrogressive, it’s going back to the times of the suffragettes when women were being treated appallingly, having their human rights violated. We’re going back to those times" (The Guardian).
Lynch, now a master's student in ecology and conservation, expressed a deep sense of responsibility and urgency about the climate crisis. "I just want things to be better, I just want things to be fair and right. If you see something you love being hurt, you do everything you can to help. It’s quite simple. It’s totally natural. I might not be able to do much but I categorically refuse to do nothing. I refuse to stand by and watch as our world burns around us," she told Sky News and DW.
Watson, reflecting on the outcome, voiced frustration at the scale and cost of the trial. "I'm glad of the verdict but feel the last two weeks have been a complete waste of public money and that a case involving £620 of damage should have been dealt with in the magistrates court." His remarks echoed a sentiment shared by many observers who questioned whether such cases should be escalated to higher courts, especially given the limited material damage involved (DW).
The Stonehenge protest, according to Just Stop Oil, attracted more global attention than any of their previous actions, thrusting the debate over climate activism, public nuisance laws, and the right to protest into the national spotlight. The case was closely watched by other activists and legal professionals, particularly for its implications regarding the new statutory offence of public nuisance and the boundaries of lawful protest in Britain today (The Guardian).
Throughout the proceedings, the judge and jury were keenly aware of the historical gravity of the issues at stake. Judge Dugdale thanked the jury for their careful consideration, noting, "This was an important decision for the issues about the right to protest, the right to freedom of speech compared to the right of a world heritage site to sit unmolested by members of the public. It’s a difficult one to gauge." In a nod to the local community, he also praised the "brave and selfless" actions of a site worker, Man Chu Zah, who tried to intervene during the protest, recommending him for a high sheriff’s award (The Guardian).
As the dust settles—quite literally—on this chapter of Stonehenge’s long history, the acquittal of the Just Stop Oil activists stands as a potent reminder of the ongoing tension between the imperative to protect cherished heritage and the right to dissent in the face of global crisis. The outcome leaves both supporters and critics of direct action with much to ponder about the future of protest, the reach of new legislation, and the enduring power of a jury’s verdict in shaping the contours of democracy.
