Greenpeace activists caused almost £3k damage to roof of Rishi Sunak’s home, court told
Four Greenpeace activists are on trial over the demonstration which saw Mr Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion draped in black fabric
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Four Greenpeace activists accused of causing criminal damage to former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s constituency home were “reckless” when they climbed onto the roof of his house during an anti-oil protest last year, a court heard.
Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, Alexandra Wilson, 32, Mathieu Soete, 38, and Michael Grant, 64, are on trial over the demonstration which saw Mr Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion draped in black fabric and a banner saying “no new oil”.
Prosecutors say that during the five-hour protest the activists damaged 15 roof tiles, causing just under £3,000 damage at the house in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton.
York Magistrates Court heard 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 August 3.
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’.”
The court heard that a roofer who did an inspection almost two weeks after the protest identified 15 damaged tiles and said he could tell the damage was recent due to “weathering and colouration”.
District Judge Adrian Lower was shown footage of the defendants sitting on the roof and pictures of damaged tiles.
One was said to be where Soete was seen sitting on the footage while another was immediately above where the protesters’ banner was, Ms Ailes said.
She told the court: “The prosecution case is that the defendants were jointly responsible for the damage.
“It can be seen that the location of the damage corresponds to the locations where the defendants went.”
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”.
Mr Hall told the court he was staying in another building on the property while Mr Sunak and his family were away, and was in the poolhouse at around 8am when he was told about the protesters on the grounds.
“I asked them what they were doing, I suggested to them that they were not permitted to be where they were and asked them to leave,” he said.
Mr Hall said he called police “within three to five minutes” and the protesters were on the site until about 1pm. He added that he had been “shocked” by the incident.
“The police called me later that afternoon to inform me that they believed some damage had been caused, which we then later got inspected,” he told the court.
Mr Hall said: “It is a well-maintained property and we would have been aware of any damage to the roof.”
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 Hall said the family had not claimed insurance for the damaged roof tiles and that they had also had to pay £1,450 to a team of tree surgeons who had been booked to work on the property that day.
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 four defendants all deny criminal damage and the trial continues.